Talk:Cindy Sheehan/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Untitled

• 2nd Archive September 2, 2005
• 3nd Archive to October 26, 2005
• 4th Archive to January 18, 2006
• 5th Archive to February 2, 2006

Anti-Semitism

If there's a way to put in the fact that Cindy Sheehan is an anti-semite, and believes that Mossad (!) was actually behind the 9/11 attacks without getting the NPOV folks in a knot, that would be great

Were you planning to find some evidence to support this claim or just going to slip an unsubstantiated claim off the wing-nut blogosphere in the hope it was true?--Gorgonzilla 03:04, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

If there's a way to calumniate Cindy Sheehan, let's do it.

ABC news Israel email

The following was sent to ABC via email:

Am I emotional? Yes, my first born was murdered. Am I angry? Yes, he was killed for lies and for a PNAC Neo-Con agenda to benefit Israel. My son joined the Army to protect America, not Israel.

ABC confirms this

The fact that Cindy Sheehan sent a letter to ABC is not in dispute; the contents are in dispute. The link above (an August 14, 2005 blog entry by Rich Lowry at National Review) does not say that ABC confirmed the exact contents. An August 16, 2005 report by Stephen Spruiell at National Review says ABC has not found the original, and is still looking for it.

Cindy says her e-mail was altered.

Another "big deal" today was the lie that I had said that Casey died for Israel. I never said that, I never wrote that. I had supposedly said it in a letter that I wrote to Ted Koppel's producer in March. I wrote the letter because I was upset at the way Ted treated me when I appeared at a Nightline Town Hall meeting in January right after the inauguration. I felt that Ted had totally disrespected me. I wrote the letter to Ted Bettag and cc'd a copy to the person who gave me Ted's address. I believe he (the person who gave me the address) changed the email and sent it out to capitalize on my new found notoriety by promoting his own agenda. Enough about that.

neo nazi support

Prominent American Neo-Nazi leader David Duke has also come out in strong support for Cindy Sheehan. In his most recent weblog he says

"Courageously she has gone to Texas near the ranch of President Bush and braved the elements and a hostile Jewish supremacist media to demand a meeting with him and a good explanation why her son and other’s sons and daughters must die and be disfigured in a war for Israel rather than for America.

Recently, she had the courage to state the obvious that her son signed up in the military to protect America not to die for Israel."

I've removed this link. Posting it is not-at-all subtle smear/POV. Duke is not writing in support of Sheehan, but using right-wing smears of her statements to bolster his anti-Semitic ravings. Yes, Sheehan has criticized the neoconservatives, who are by no means exclusively Jewish. Yes, she has called for Israel to get out of Palestine, which is NOT the same as the poisonous anti-Semitism Duke spouts. Shall we link to every crackpot who is for or against Sheehan? From a look at the current list, we seem to be headed in that direction -- Eleemosynary.

Israel / Anti Semitism Issues

Removed most to Talk:Cindy Sheehan/Archive 1

Drudge

Can we really quote Drudge?

He's a well-known conservative that is known for spinning all anti-Bush quotes to make the other side look bad; in this case, making Cindy look like a "flip-flopper".

Somebody obviously did (not me); I just edited the quote to make it NPOV, in particular removing the phrsae "flip-flopper" which even Druudge didn't use. However, Drudge usually tries to make himself part of any story that damages "the other side".. I think it's clear in this case that he's trying to spin it his way and I see no harm to the truth in making this apparent.--CSTAR 03:06, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

The first quote should come from Mrs. Sheehan herself. NPOV should defer to the original subject, no? Sympleko (Συμπλεκω) 16:53, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Fine with me. I'm just editing to balance a concerted effort among some anon editors to only include Drudge's distorted quoting of Sheehan. Whether or not Drudge is quoted is only of minor concern to me at least. --CSTAR 16:57, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

The picture

Geeh that picture could like like anybody's family reunion. Is that really G.W. Bush somewhere in there? This picture is useless, but more to the point it probably is a copyright violation since it appears to be pilfered from the web.--CSTAR 17:09, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Exactly, removed. --ThomasK 05:04, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

---

Media Matters has an extensive and very critical report on Drudge's false claims, as well as Fox News's recycling of them: http://mediamatters.org/items/200508100009 -BC

---

3RR violation

Anon user:70.33.80.97 has apparently violated the Wikipedia 3 revert rule [[1]] and should be blocked. As an admin I can do this, but will refrain from doing this in good faith, since I have edited the article (and the WP rules on this are very byzantine). If this antisocial behavior continues, I urge other admins to block this user.--CSTAR 17:49, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Minor Edits

Interesting article. I have taken liberty to move some of the sections into chronological order, format some items, correct some spelling and change some things to correct some gramatical errors. We need to find references to credible news sources for some of the sections. I will devote some time to look for those later. Kgrr 21:06, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Removal of important events

I strongly disagree with the removal of important events in the course of this story from this article (because it might offend your political views). Please restore the following three sections. Kgrr 16:18, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

President George W. Bush News Conference

- On 11 August 2005 President George W. Bush, instead of having Cindy Sheehan arrested, he spoke to reporters at his ranch in Crawford, TX and said the following: - - :"I sympathize with Mrs. Sheehan," Bush said. "She feels strongly about her position, and she has every right in the world to say what she believes. This is America. She has a right to her position, and I thought long and hard about her position. I've heard her position from others, which is: Get out of Iraq now. And it would be a mistake for the security of this country and the ability to lay the foundations for peace in the long run if we were to do so." [2] -

The entire Bush quote you include above is in the article, the last time I checked. The only item that is deleted is the phrase instead of having Cindy Sheehan arrested. There are a lot of "potential occurrences" that can be placed in there, sort of like the potential men in the fictional Wyman's doorway (Quine). We could for instance say something such as On 11 August 2005 President George W. Bush, instead of taking his chainsaw and going on a rampage cutting off the heads of protestors, spoke to reporters.....--CSTAR 16:32, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

==Threat of Arrest== + - On 9 August 2005, David Swanson, a member of the progressive web community Daily Kos, broke the story and confirmed via telephone with Cindy Sheehan that the police had threatened to arrest all protesters on site on Thursday, August 11th, when Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice will be at the president's nearby ranch. [3] + - + ==Congress== + - At least sixteen congressmen signed a letter on 9 August 2005 requesting that Bush meet with Sheehan and the other relatives of fallen soldiers. The congressmen call on Bush to ensure that no one will be arrested for having a peaceful demonstration. + - + - :"Since the loss of her son, Ms. Sheehan and other families have been committed to helping family members of other soldiers who have been lost in Iraq... For several days now, she has been waiting outside your ranch, hoping to meet with you about the loss of her son and the failure to discover weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Ms. Sheehan has indicated that she is planning to continue her vigil for the entirety of your vacation at your Crawford complex if necessary." + - + - Additional congressmen have signed the letter that reminds the president of the citizens right to petition the government. + - + - Source: Letter to Bush at RawStory.com + -

Open Letter to Mr Bush

I believe this open letter from Mrs. Sheehan to President Bush is also significant. However, I am afraid that the revisionist CSTAR will remove a reference to it. How should I proceed?? Kgrr 16:27, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Cindy Sheehan Thu Aug 11, 4:56 PM ET

This is George Bush’s accountability moment. That’s why I’m here. The mainstream media aren’t holding him accountable. Neither is Congress. So I’m not leaving Crawford until he’s held accountable. It’s ironic, given the attacks leveled at me recently, how some in the media are so quick to scrutinize -- and distort -- the words and actions of a grieving mother but not the words and actions of the president of the United States. ADVERTISEMENT

But now it’s time for him to level with me and with the American people. I think that’s why there’s been such an outpouring of support. This is giving the 61 percent of Americans who feel that the war is wrong something to do -- something that allows their voices to be heard. It’s a way for them to stand up and show that they DO want our troops home, and that they know this war IS a mistake… a mistake they want to see corrected. It’s too late to bring back the people who are already dead, but there are tens of thousands of people still in harm’s way.

There is too much at stake to worry about our own egos. When my son was killed, I had to face the fact that I was somehow also responsible for what happened. Every American that allows this to continue has, to some extent, blood on their hands. Some of us have a little bit, and some of us are soaked in it.

People have asked what it is I want to say to President Bush. Well, my message is a simple one. He’s said that my son -- and the other children we’ve lost -- died for a noble cause. I want to find out what that noble cause is. And I want to ask him: “If it’s such a noble cause, have you asked your daughters to enlist? Have you encouraged them to go take the place of soldiers who are on their third tour of duty?” I also want him to stop using my son’s name to justify the war. The idea that we have to “complete the mission” in Iraq to honor Casey’s sacrifice is, to me, a sacrilege to my son’s name. Besides, does the president any longer even know what “the mission” really is over there?

Casey knew that the war was wrong from the beginning. But he felt it was his duty to go, that his buddies were going, and that he had no choice. The people who send our young, honorable, brave soldiers to die in this war, have no skin in the game. They don’t have any loved ones in harm’s way. As for people like O’Reilly and Hannity and Michelle Malkin and Rush Limbaugh and all the others who are attacking me and parroting the administration line that we must complete the mission there -- they don’t have one thing at stake. They don’t suffer through sleepless nights worrying about their loved ones

Before this all started, I used to think that one person couldn’t make a difference... but now I see that one person who has the backing and support of millions of people can make a huge difference.

That’s why I’m going to be out here until one of three things happens: It’s August 31st and the president’s vacation ends and he leaves Crawford. They take me away in a squad car. Or he finally agrees to speak with me.

If he does, he’d better be prepared for me to hold his feet to the fire. If he starts talking about freedom and democracy -- or about how the war in Iraq is protecting America -- I’m not going to let him get away with it.

Like I said, this is George Bush’s accountability moment. [4]

Response to removal of events

Whoa, revisionist? Please, sir: (primo) I don't think you know what side I'm on. (secondo) I made the deletions to make the article more to the point and useful as a source of information. I will not delete any reference that is legitimately connected to the story and certainly not the one you cite above. I deleted the section on the threat of arrest, because as far as I know, no arrest occurred on the day it was predicted. --CSTAR 16:48, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

CSTAR, but the threat of arrest of her and other protesters was real. In the town I live in, anti-war protesters are regularly arrested. It's really intimidating. Bush's comments to the press do state that he had to think about the proper response to her protest. He had to think a long time to conclude that she had the right to her opinion. This is a break from his previous reactions of creating "free speech zones" (portable prisons) where people got to say what they wanted but in cages miles away from the event that is being protested. It is important to state that no arrest occurred as predicted. Removing this series of events is definitelyrevisionism in my mind.

Also, I believe your new structure of separating her activism from the Bush response rather than tracking the events in a cronological order for now helps to disperse the exchange between the Sheehan and Bush camps. I don't think this organization helps anyone piece together the story. Kgrr 17:02, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Well I put back in the threat of arrest (in a modified form, suitable to the context in which I placed it). However, I think one should also try to present the article in a dispassionate form here on WP, however much sympathy one may feel for Ms Sheehan. If you think chronolgical order is important, start a section called "Chronology".--CSTAR 17:12, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

CSTAR, I will take your suggestion to open a section called Chronology. This will separate more long-term sections from the day-to-day evolution of this story. Kgrr 19:33, 12 August 2005 (UTC)~

Highly political subject

This article is a perfect example of the uselessness of Wikipedia. I mean, don't you all see it? This topic is going on as we speak. People from both sides edit the article coloring it to their particular point of view. At the very least this article should have a permanent POV warning tag attached to it.

Re: uselessness of Wikipedia. That's easy to fix. Don't read it. Try the creationist [5] wiki instead. Yo might like the stuff on Noah's ark. --CSTAR 20:37, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

So, fearless anonymous user, what should be done with notable contentious topics? Just not cover them? Have a blank article with only a title? Personally, I find it very useful to have Wikipedia as a central collection of known facts and links for extremeely current events. Witness the 2005_london_attacks' up-to-the second (at times) coverage, as well as the 2004_Indian_Ocean_earthquake coverage, which had the best summary of available information earlier than any other news source that I could find. But, of course, as the current tag states, this is coverage of a "current event", and the information may be either stale, innaccurate, or vague. That's enough of a warning for me. --NightMonkey 21:56, August 12, 2005 (UTC)

There is a difference between an event like the London attacks and the tsunami which are fairly void of politics to this event which is nothing more than a well-executed political stunt. Surely you would acknowledge that?

well-executed political stunt. Nice phrase. What else could we apply it to? --CSTAR 23:33, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

It might be a "well-executed political stunt." But, that's besides the point. It's a noteable event, based on major media coverage, public debate, reaction from public figures (the President, Congressmen, etc.), reaction from other veteran families, influence on public opinion polls, etc. Your argument about how this article shows how "useless" Wikipedia is in covering political events is without basis. Of course partisan edits occour (often from anonymous IPs...), even on "non-political" articles, but, usually, they are quickly corrected. If you see something that's factually wrong, non-noteable, heavily biased in style, or other problems covered by Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and have good references, just join in! Wikis are different in that it is a many-to-many medium - the tools for you to fix things are all available to you. And register, please, before editing. :) --NightMonkey 00:49, August 14, 2005 (UTC)

Good work, everyone

This seems like a good and factual article. I usually ignore the more controversial and current event topics on Wikipedia, but this does look pretty good. Congradulations to all the good-faith editors. JesseW 21:52, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

It depends on what state you happen to catch it in. It's pretty fluid right now.

Critics

Why was the critics section removed? The fact that there are critics is a fact, uncontroversial, and if stated as and assertion "there are critics, these are the critics and this is what they said" has little bearing on any argument either way.--CSTAR 21:55, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Oh, I already reverted it. I guess someone didn't want to hear any criticism.

I think that the criticism is actually more important than the protest. At the end of the day Sheehan is gaining tremendously from the sympathy she receives as the target of the right wing smear machine at full throttle. I strongly suspect that if Rove was not preoccupied with other issues he would be desperately telling the VRWC to lay off as it is ridiculously counterproductive. --Gorgonzilla 04:09, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

Including comments from partisan organizations?

Is it just me or does it seem out of place to include various comments from partisan organizations? What do they have to do with Cindy Sheehan besides provide another soapbox for their POV?

The same argument would apply to delete Drudge's (out of context) quotes, wouldn't it? that is

What do his comments have to do with Cindy Sheehan besides provide another soapbox for his POV?

--CSTAR 23:44, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure what quotes you are referring to. The letter from her family is a material fact. I don't think Drudge has added any OPINION about this event such as you get from moveon.org.

The partisan organizations Sheehan belongs to are also material facts as are the political activities associated with Sheehan's protest. --CSTAR 00:01, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

Although Matt Drudge champions himself as an independent populist, free from the influences of corporations, advertisers, and editors, he is aligned himself with many right-winged pundits - Ann Coulter, Bill O'Reilly, Rush Limbaugh, Michael Savage, Sean Hannity. He claims to be fair and balanced ... just like Fox News. It's well known that he's reckless or careless for publishing erroneous rightwing smears. In fact he's been sued over it. I don't think he's a reliable source. In this article it's important to expose Drudge's disinformation with the appropriate evidence. Kgrr 00:52, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

The correct approach is to read the material, read the response and correct the false Drudge spin. According to Sheehan the aunt who wrote the letter never knew Cassey and she has the support of Cassey's father and three sibblings. So the claim of being attacked by the father's family is essentially a complete misrepresentation. But it is still an important part of the story because the issue being highlighted here is how Bush really treats vets and their families. If they challenge Bush he sicks Drudge onto them. -Unsigned by Gorgonzilla

Drudge has no credibility. I don't believe he deserves the term 'reporter' or 'journalist' near his name. His website is edited rapidly, and often outright falsehoods and rumors are put forth as 'flashes' and then quickly edited or expunged when they are proven untrue. An example would be in this story, his original title for his 'flash' on the email from Cindy's sister-in-law was "FAMILY OF FALLEN SOLDIER PLEADS: PLEASE STOP, CINDY!" Presumably he was told that it was a bit of a stretch to call an anonymous email allegedly from one aunt a 'family', so he changed it to "FAMILY OF BUSH PROTEST MOM PLEADS: PLEASE STOP...". He also edited the flash story to remove the aunt's misspelled last name without making any notation of that editing. There are other examples, but the point is that Drudge has less credibility and accountability than the average blogger and should be treated primarily as a third party opinion and POV. In this case, 'Cherie Quarterolo' hasn't even confirmed this anonymous email by way of even an on-the-record interview with anyone, the only thing that seems to be confirmed is that Cindy Sheehan did not deny that she had a sister-in-law named Cherie Quarterolo, and she indicated that they were not really a big part of Casey's life; she did not confirm that she has heard any criticism from them. -Kwh 10:31, August 13, 2005 (UTC)

Drudge is a pathetic waste of space, a vicious liar and attack dog for the GOP. But the fact that his is attacking Sheehan, almost certainly on Rove's orders or the orders of his minions IS important, it demonstrates how Bush really treats the famillies of the soldiers killed in his wars.--Gorgonzilla 11:28, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

24.128.88.42 US UNITED STATES, MAINE, KITTERY, COMCAST CABLE COMMUNICATIONS HOLDINGS INC - get an ID before deleting stuff Kgrr 01:01, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

What the fuck could you possibly be talking about? (anonymous edit by 24.128.88.42 (talk · contribs))

details on the IP address of an anonymous vandal Kgrr 12:11, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

Use of Copyrighted Photo

The photo sheehan.jpg is copyrighted as follows:

© 2000-2002 North Carolina Independent Media Center. Unless otherwise stated by the author, all content is free for non-commercial reuse, reprint, and rebroadcast, on the net and elsewhere. Opinions are those of the contributors and are not necessarily endorsed by the NC IMC

It cannot be used according to the upload policy which states:

Please do not upload files under a "non-commercial use only" or "copyrighted, used by permission" licence. Such files will be deleted Kgrr 12:14, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

Exactly how is it possible for a photo taken after her son was killed in the invasion of Iraq be (c) 2000-2002?--Gorgonzilla 15:58, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

Kgrr - as I'm sure you may have noticed, this is one of many pictures posted in comments on that IndyMedia site. Indymedia can only claim copyright on that which is not contributed by other authors. For all you know, the author or a friend thereof uploaded the picture to en.wiki with the intention that it be distributed as PD. The author of the picture's email address is right there, jeff@paterson.net. If you want to be helpful on WP, you can:

1. put {{copyvio}} on the image and add it to WP:CP
2. send a form letter to Mr. Paterson asking if he gives permission under GFDL or PD.
3. If so or not, document the permission or lack thereof.

In the end, that's a better result for Wikipedia than just deleting the content. -Kwh 12:31, August 13, 2005 (UTC)

KWH - I will make an effort to e-mail Jeff Patterson and ask him about the copyright. Kgrr 12:43, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

Criticism Section

LOL!! Look at what the criticisms section has changed to. Right-wing smear? Oh brother.

How laughable it is with Gorgonzilla's profile that he would engage in childish POV vandalism. (anonymous comment left by 24.128.88.42 (talk · contribs))

Your arguments would carry more weight if you refrained from personal attacks against other editors. Past comments like "Some moron got rid of the POV tag"[6] and your current comments about "laughable" items and "childish" editors do not appear to assume good faith, Please keep discussions civil. Eclipsed 12:35, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

The only critic listed by name in the section is Drudge. The other criticisms are unsourced and come ENTIRELY from the right wing blogosphere. Even Bill O'Rielly and Limbaugh have been carefull to avoid attacking Sheehan directly. Why don't we just label the section 'Criticism by Drudge'? --Gorgonzilla 12:54, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

Although at least one critic[7] argues that O'Rielly did personally attack Sheehan. Eclipsed 12:58, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

Even so O'Rielly and Drudge are hardly disinterested critics. They are both frequently accused of being prime movers of the Right Wing Smear machine. The critics section should note the partisan nature of the criticism. It should probably also include Malkin's claim that Sheehan is an extreeme lefty (or something like that she is not very cogent)--Gorgonzilla 13:05, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

What's laughable to me is people who can't work on editing an encyclopedia without wearing their political opinions on their sleeve, and bringing in the same-old-same-old "little end vs. big end" debates into every single article. I agree that Gorgonzilla's edit is wanting on POV, but it did add content to the article. If it peeves you off, find a way to save the content and remove the POV. Blogs are for opinionated debate. We are editing an encyclopedia here, so propose a different edit. -Kwh 13:07, August 13, 2005 (UTC)

The point here in case the anon poster missed it is that the criticism of Sheehan is causing far more damage to the WH than to Sheehan, even though it mostly comes from a tiny number of partisan bloggers rather than the WH itself. I re-edited the piece to name the pundits which is better from the NPOV. I also edited the 'flip-flop' charge which made no sense. --Gorgonzilla 13:26, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

Actually as I tried to source the criticism it all seems to point back to Drudge, should this simply be 'Criticism by Drudge?'.--Gorgonzilla 13:42, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

I'd suggest just 'Criticism' for now. That there is criticism is a fact, but who/what is the "main source" of criticism is, currently, a theory. Eclipsed 13:51, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

O'Reilly cites Drudge as the source. Of course Drudge does not quote his own sources so even though most of the criticism traces back through Drudge... I edited the comments by O'Reilly to make them more NPOV, originals were straight from left wing wing-nut sites.--Gorgonzilla 14:20, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

Err why is it necessary to repeat the 'far left elements' claim by O'Reilly? On 9 August 2005 Bill O'Reilly on his Fox News television show criticized Sheehan as a victim of "far left elements" who are exploiting her for their own purposes. [8] The next day O'Reilly criticized Sheehan for refusing to appear on his show and claims that Sheehan is being exploited by "far left elements".

Sources

The critics need to have sources that are showing that they are actual criticising Sheehan, rather than people in general. Right now, the first paragraph in this section does not have sources for any of those listed. See below:

"Sheehan has been criticized by Matt Drudge, Michelle Malkin, Bill O'Reilly, Charles Johnson of Little Green Footballs, Christopher Hitchens, one of Casey's paternal aunts, and a few parents of other soldiers killed in Iraq."

Primarily for my reference, here is the definition from Merriam-Webster...

"1 a : one who expresses a reasoned opinion on any matter especially involving a judgment of its value, truth, righteousness, beauty, or technique b : one who engages often professionally in the analysis, evaluation, or appreciation of works of art or artistic performances 2 : one given to harsh or captious judgment"[9]

It seems to me that 1.a is the definition to use, and that in defining a person as a critic, it makes sense to find a source that shows this. The names of people should not be included until that evidence is found. Americanus 12:22, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

This article may not conform to the neutral point of view policy

If you want to discuss POV .. let's do it here. Kgrr 12:39, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

It seems the biggest problem is the number of edits going on with this article currently. One minute it might seem fairly neutral, and the next minute all sorts of POV additions have been made. POV destroyer 00:51, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

700 at Camp

"CINDY SHEEHAN: We had over 700 people come through our camp yesterday, and we are expecting thousands this weekend. It is just so incredibly amazing to me. I think people in America just needed a way to stand up and have their voices count. And for some reason, this is a way for them to do it." [10]

"Before we get to the less than negative things that are happening out at Camp Casey and in the world at large today, over 700 people showed up at the Camp today." [11]

There is plenty of proof ... and plenty of revisionists. You might argue that the actual number reported is far less and simply remove a line. Quote your "official" right-wing news source for your numbers instead of deleting facts as reported from Crawford, TX. There may be a reason why the commercial media may not want the real numbers out.

I think that it's legitimate to include a claim as fact if there is no competing claim of equal or greater veracity. 705 is put forth as an 'official count' by the organizers so I would say unless someone else is there counting heads (and some blogger saying "I drove by and I saw like 100 people" doesn't cut it) it should stand. But I would point out something interesting; according to Wikipedia, the 2000 Census population of Crawford, Texas is 705. To me that seems an odd coincidence, and makes me wonder if someone said "gee, we've doubled the population of this town" and the figure might have come out of that. Just speculation. -Kwh 13:46, August 13, 2005 (UTC)

I don't like this POV in the article: "12 August 2005 Camp Casey protest draws hundreds of supporters, with a constant presence of just over 100.[24][25][26]." I gave you three references for the fact that there are over 700 protesters there. Please read them. In addition there are about 100 pro-bush protesters there. I gave you a reference for the count of the support our troops camp as well. (This may be the 100 you are referring to). Please restore the cronology with the correct numbers. Kgrr 18:37, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

I listened to Sheehan on "Democracy Now" and it was my impression that her statement meant that over the course of the day 700 people had come through (maybe spending an hour or two at a time), not that there were that many people based at the camp. People are drifting in from all around the country, but most don't have the committment that Sheehan has to sticking it out day and night by the side of the road. My reading of the articles (I read a lot of them from different sources) was that the permanent presence was just over 100 but that hundreds of people came in and out of the camp. If you've got the sources and they're clear about this, then you can feel free to change it back. Whatever appears in the article should be absolutely accurate and factual. Don't assume the edit lowering the crowd estimate was due to POV, as I'm the one who made it and doesn't have anything to do with my personal POV, just making sure (per Wikipedia principles) that the numbers of permanent/temporary visitors to Camp Casey are stated factually. Badagnani 22:48, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

The numbers are stated factually. I watch Democracy on channel 9415. I have two satellite dishes on my house... so what. Let's say you had a concert or convention, you count the people attending during the day, not the people overnighting there. All three articles quote over 700 people there. Let's stick to the facts instead of your POV. Kgrr 23:34, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

I agree with you on this; if it's made clear that not all the folks are overnighting there (which I had assumed from the way the previous version was worded) then the 700 figure should be used, though all of the three sources given are anti-war ones and have their own POV. I think I had changed 700 to "hundreds" because one of the "mainstream" media sources (not cited by you) gave a figure of 500. I'd like to ask if you might consider kindly laying off the POV insinuations about my edits; you don't know what my POV is and it doesn't come across as very nice. I've listened to Amy every day for years (even though that doesn't matter) ;-) Badagnani 00:18, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

'Cherie Quarterolo' Letter

The Cherie Quarterolo letter should be properly sourced to Melanie Morgan, apparently a co-host of a conservative radio drive-time show on KSFO in San Francisco (or conservative co-host of a radio drive-time show, or co-host of a drive-time show on the conservative KSFO). Perhaps Drudge was cc:ed on the email. She claims to have verified the source of this email, though no proof is given but another alleged email. There's also other opinion that states that none of the related people mentioned in Casey's obituary from the LA Times actually signed their names to the email.

All in all, it sounds like it can be averred that Cheri[e] Quarterolo, Pat Sheehan's sister, is critical of Cindy, and claims to speak for the entire Sheehan family. -Kwh

Rewriting Chronology

I would dearly love to pitch the whole Chronology heading and rewrite. There's no reason why an encyclopedia needs to include a dramatic blow-by-blow of every letter written and press conference held day-by-day. The news should be on WikiNews, the encyclopedia should be written with historical perspective. Below is my rewrite, keeping only what I see as relevant in the Chronology; please help me edit it and flesh it out:

KWH Chronology Rewrite

On 4 April 2004 Casey Sheehan was killed in an ambush in Sadr City, a division of Baghdad. He volunteered for a mission to rescue some fellow soldiers trapped in a firefight, although as a Specialist Humvee Mechanic, he was not obligated to.[12] This needs to be fleshed out just a little with how it happened.

On June 18 2004, two months after Casey's death, Sheehan was among grieving military family members who met with US President George W. Bush at Fort Lewis, near Seattle, Washington. [13] Sheehan later claimed that Bush showed disrespect in this meeting by treating it as if it were a "party" and by referring to her as "Mom", and that she was hustled out of his presence without the ability to voice her concerns about the war.

On December 22 2004, Cindy Sheehan wrote a critical letter to the editors of Time Magazine in response to their choice of George W. Bush for "Man of the Year"[14]

On March 19 2005, Cindy Sheehan spoke to three thousand people who converged on Fayetteville, North Carolina to mark two years of war and occupation in Iraq. [15]

On August 4 2005, President Bush began a planned five-week vacation at his Prairie Chapel Ranch in Crawford, Texas. According to Sheehan, she decided to go to the ranch at this time to personally confront the President and demand a second meeting to voice her concerns over the original reasons for the War in Iraq, and also to set a timeline when other troops would come home from Iraq.

Sheehan and a number of supporters arrived in Crawford in buses and cars, setting up a roadside camp directly outside the President's ranch, named "Camp Casey", as well as coordinating with the local Crawford Peace House.

On August 6 2005, the White House sent National security adviser Stephen Hadley and deputy White House chief of staff Joe Hagin to meet Cindy Sheehan. She said... what did Cindy say about this meeting?

At least sixteen congressmen signed a letter on 9 August 2005 asking that Bush meet with Sheehan and the other relatives of fallen soldiers, as well as calling on Bush to ensure that no one will be arrested for having a peaceful demonstration.[16]

A rumor circulated around "Camp Casey" that on 10 August 2005, Sheehan and her companions would be arrested as a threat to national security, owing to the visit of Condoleezza Rice and Donald Rumsfeld to the President's Ranch on 11 August 2005.[17] Ultimately, however, no arrest was made.[18]

-Kwh 14:40, August 13, 2005 (UTC)

maybe also mention founding of Gold Star Families for Peace organization. (January ??, 2005)[19]. Eclipsed 15:05, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

The problem that I have with thinning down the cronology so soon (not to say it won't happen later) is that small events that happen may seem insignificant at first become important pieces of the puzzle later. I vote not to do this at the moment. If need be, we could create a separate page that captures the progress on the story Cindy Sheehan Timeline and one that reflects the more static article Cindy Sheehan. This has been done with Valerie Plame and Plame scandal timeline. Kgrr 16:06, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

A chronology is more meaningful to The Plame Affair since the relative timing of events, and especially when different people did what, is meaningful to the legalities of what is happening in that case. And I agree, in the case of the Plame affair, that there were certain small details that took on great significance in light of later revelations. I don't think so in this case; it's simply bad writing style to fall back on a chronology as the bare minimum way to represent this info. But now that I look at Plame affair I see that it suffers from similar problems; it's way overweight and the style is tone-deaf.

Anyways, I wasn't asking for a vote, I was asking for help fleshing out an edit. Can you say what particular omission you are worried about in my edit above and possibly edit it back in? I would say that if your only concern is that every event be kept for possible future significance, then the chronology can be copied to the Talk page as a means of "keeping notes". -Kwh 17:26, August 14, 2005 (UTC)

Mission statement

I reverted an edit that supposedly included the "mission statement" of GSFP. That wasn't the mission statement of that organization as can be seen from its website at the link www.gsfp.org ----CSTAR 16:38, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

Return of the vandals

The following anonymous ip's are suspected of vandalism: Eclipsed 03:00, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

70.176.183.170 (talk · contribs) (is this the pages first Hitler reference?[20])

24.18.128.52 (talk · contribs) ( 4+ reverts )

207.136.9.106 (talk · contribs)

68.23.100.34 (talk · contribs)

71.112.175.247 (talk · contribs)

see Wikipedia:Vandalism_in_progress#Cindy_Sheehan

Quotes

When you make a "Quotes" section, aren't you usually supposed to pick a few of the best ones instead of about 50 of them (comprising almost the entire text of a speech)? Maybe I'm wrong about this. Badagnani 02:49, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

-- Good point. List shortened. TexasDawg 03:21, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

Yes, the quotes are too long to read. Some of the quotes all come from the same sources. Simply put the links into the Links section and label something like Text of Speech to whoever. Americanus 03:31, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

I shortened the Quotes section down to just a few short quotes; I put the links to the transcripts of the speeches and articles containing the lengthier quotes in the Links section. When I went to post this edit, the page had been locked. TexasDawg 03:55, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

I think there's way too many there. If someone really loves 'em, send 'em over to wikiquote and use {{wikiquote}}. This article needs to get back on track, the use of headings and subheadings doesn't conform to any outline logic and starts to look like Borges' Chinese Encyclopedia. -Kwh 05:16, August 14, 2005 (UTC)

So... remove the whole quote section from this article, branch it to wikiquote where it can be worked on separately. Then go on with narrative here, and only include quotes when relevant and notable. Thus: Eclipsed 05:28, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

pick the four or five quotes that really set Cindy Sheehan apart from others saying the same kinds of things for the article. Here are the three that I think are keepers:

"My first born was killed violently for a neo-con agenda that only benefits a very chosen few in this world."

"You tell me the truth. You tell me that my son died for oil. You tell me that my son died to make your friends rich. You tell me my son died to spread the cancer of Pax Americana, imperialism in the Middle East. You tell me that, you don't tell me my son died for freedom and democracy."

(even this one is too long)

"Why does Terri Schiavo deserve to live more than my son, Spc. Casey Austin Sheehan?"

These need to be the short and sweet quotes that define Cindy Sheehan.Kgrr 16:18, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

Let's move the quote discussion to the Cindy_Sheehan page on wikiquote.Eclipsed 17:42, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

While making an edit, Badagnani said, "Italicize indented quotes. btw this was a pain. If you're going to revise so extensively, at least spend enough time here to know how it's done." My feeling exactly. Italicizing indented quotes is unnecessary and it is poetic that it took you so long. From the Manual of style "There is normally no need to put quotations in italics unless the material would otherwise call for italics (emphasis, use of non-English words, etc.)." I hate having to waste my time correcting italics-happy editors. Why don't you be a dear and clean up your mistake.Pencil Pusher 20:54, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

• You're right--I'm wrong. I apologize for the misinformed (and thus rude) comment and will clean up. Whatever the choice (italics or none) it should be consistent throughout the article, which it was not. Obviously after this public tongue lashing I'll never forget this element of WP style! Back to work. Badagnani 21:03, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

didn't mean for it to be a tongue lashing, sorry if it came across that way. Pencil Pusher 21:18, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Page protection

I've protected this article due to the request over at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection and the apparent edit warring going on here. Once a consensus is reached on the talk page here over the content in question I'll unprotect the page. -- Longhair | Talk 03:58, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

I think that the sources of the quotes need to be looked at pretty closely. Some are bordering on being personal web sites or web logs. Wikipedia:Reliable_sources has some information on this. Americanus 04:45, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

I say pitch the entire chronology heading. The majority of these items are redundant with events described elsewhere, many are not worthy of mention in historical context, and it's extremely poor in style.

Pitch the majority of subheadings under Background. Stick to one factual narrative telling the reader the story of why Cindy is noteworthy. Her son went to Iraq, her son died, She met with Bush, she became an activist, she went to Crawford, people took notice. Inclusion of various speeches given, people met, etc. is only necessary inasmuch as these facts are exceptional to the general narrative.

In addition to the one factual narrative, do a heading for Controversy and break it down, case by case. What are the controversies? Cindy allegedly changed her "tune". Who said what? Put forth 1 piece of the best evidence for each side and let the reader decide. Cheri Quarterolo allegedly wrote an email. Cindy is allegedly being controlled/used for political purposes by the far left. Each of these items is currently getting 5-6 sentences and 2-3 grafs. I would put forth the challenge that with good writing, this can be done with 1 graf of 2-3 sentences for each controversy.

I don't think this subject needs much more treatment than that, unless something really significant happens in the future (e.g. Bush meets with Sheehan, renounces all his policy, resigns and begs for forgiveness). Trim the fat and there's not much room left for POV to hide. As it is, this article would alternately bore hell out of or confuse a reader who came to WP to ask "who is this Cindy Sheehan person I heard about?" -Kwh 05:51, August 14, 2005 (UTC)

Re-reading the chronological narrative, I see that the chronology probably could indeed be worked into a narrative, with headings discussing the various key points. I don't personally see anything wrong with the chronology as it is (it is definitely not boring, as you imply!) but I can see how some might prefer a narrative. In this case, the chronology did serve its function, almost like a set of "training wheels" for the article, keeping important developments arranged in chronological order, all backed up with sources.

Your use of the word "pitch," however, seems flippant. If most of the important points could be kept, the reworking could work. I trust you'll keep important content in doing so, as many people have worked hard to include important facts in the chronology.

Let's have input from other contributors on this. Badagnani 06:12, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

I think it is important to keep the chronology. Should a mass riot break out, then we will have captured what led up the event. I personally believe that the Crawford camp is potentially a tinderbox that may either errupt into violence or continue peacefully (depending on how it's managed). Eventually I do believe this story will have its part in bringing an end to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Longhair: Please add the current event to the chronology, it's significant: 12-13 August 2005 Demonstrators backing President Bush's war effort arrive at Camp Crawford [21]

Kgrr 16:52, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

Longhair: Please add this curret event to the chronology: 14 August 2005 Shots fired near protesters. [22] A neighboring rancher discharged a rifle several times near the protesters. He said "I shot at a bird, and missed it a while ago." (Who shoots birds with a rifle???)

Kgrr 23:40, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

Fox News Channel

As far a left goes, Fox News goes to the blame game. The blame game...."Some People Say..." As far as that little phrase goes, remember the words of Fox News. "Some People Say!" After hearing Bill O'Reilly, Michelle Malkin and John Gibson go after Cindy, Ms. Sheehan says Bill O'Reilly's Show is an "Obscenity to Humanity" and continuously retorts the right-wings smear campaign! Then Fox News gives a grieving mom gets a makeover. Picture this, Ms. Sheehan now she's a far-leftist, Michael Moore supportive, anti-war mom, who hypocritical crusade to get President Bush to force the U.S. troops come home so that the terrorist could win, that's ludicrous! Now c'mon, can't we get a right to protest outside (9 miles) of the Crawford ranch (to at least say President Bush) made a mistake. Oh, I forgot Fox News is the cheerleader for Bush and his people. Karl Rove is more important than Sheehan's protest. LILVOKA 15 August 2005 12:13 (EST)--------Sorry I didn't catch it in time to sign! Thanks Eclipsed.

ummm.... So chopping out all of that POV -- are you saying that "Bill O'Reilly and others are criticising Sheehan"? I think that's already in the article. Also, please sign your comments. Eclipsed 17:39, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

An Outsider's View

As a non-American, it has amazed me to see the amount of derogorative coverage Ms. Sheehan has garnered from the US right-wing media simply for excerciseing her right in wishing to make the country's ultimate public servant, President Bush, accountable for his actions. This, and much of the events of the last several years, leads me to believe that very few people actually know what democracy is or how it works. The leval of venom displayed towards her is utterly appalling, and yet another blow against the image of the USA in the rest of the world. You'd think we'd be used to this kind of thing by now, but just when you think you've hit rock bottom along comes someone with a jackhammer .... Fergananim August 14 2005

• I think you mean the liberal media, don't let the intense hatred of liberals fool you, they're all a bunch of secret liberals!! - anon

Unprotected

Unprotected, as no discussion on talk. All protection seems to be vandal related. Recommend quick-blocking of any vandalism for 1 day periods, without excessive warning --depending on the severtity of the vandalism. -St|eve 02:04, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

• I will add a commented out section at the top of the page to warn vandals of this policy. It seems better than protection given that it's a current event. David | Talk 11:08, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Anti-Semitism

The article linked in the claim that Sheehan has been accused of anti-semitism does not actually make the charge, nor is it necessarily a notable claim. If the Israeli Embassy, a senior Israeli or Jewish politician or a leading Jewish figure or anti-anti-semitism campaigner made the charge it would be notable, same if it was made by a major named columnist or US politician. A wingnut publication with no real readership is not notable. Plus the article does not have the guts to call her an anti-semite directly, instead its the old trick of saying she 'associates' with unnamed anti-semites. --Gorgonzilla 02:23, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

If David Duke says he is a big supporter of George Bush that does not mean it is a notable comment that should be listed in an article. If Sheehan wellcomed the support or invited Duke on stage etc. there would be a connection. As it stands this is simply a way to perform a very POV guilt by association tactic. Making false accusations of anti-semitism for political purposes is generally considered to be insulting to the victims of anti-semitism. --Gorgonzilla 04:15, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Casey Sheehan

Why isn't there an article on Casey Sheehan himself? I think there ought to be to clearly demonstrate every fact of what Cindy Sheehan is doing in the least.

Vandal

192.88.132.242

Namespace:

(Latest | Earliest) View (previous 50) (next 50) (20 | 50 | 100 | 250 | 500).

   * 13:55, 15 August 2005 (hist) (diff) Cindy Sheehan (top)
   * 13:44, 15 August 2005 (hist) (diff) Cindy Sheehan
   * 13:35, 15 August 2005 (hist) (diff) Cindy Sheehan

Kgrr 14:00, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Blocked 24 hours for vandalism. David | Talk 14:07, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

[And who is now making a full apology for his actions. My actions were stupid, and without merit... I don't know how many of you will accept this, but I am sorry for my actions here.]192.88.132.242

• Here's another IP for blocking--deleted entire page twice on 8/17. ==> User:68.79.134.87 Badagnani 02:28, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Here's a new vandal: 24.18.128.52

Vandalized page, as well as the Democratic Underground page, several times.

Repeated vandalism going on -- kindly block IP 69.111.91.19. Badagnani 04:56, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

::Hey Elee...why delete vandalism report (the most recent one, IP 70.etc.) with no comment? Badagnani 05:14, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

:::Did I delete a vandalism report? If I did, it was inadvertent. Very sorry if I did. Please rv for me, because I'm not sure where this happened. Eleemosynary

This one is even worse. Hope there is an admin on duty! 70.176.183.170 Badagnani 05:07, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Vandalism, please ban 24.166.144.178 Badagnani 07:52, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

Sheehan's age

Sheehan appears to have been born in 1957, with most sources claiming she is 48 [23][24][25]. --Viriditas | Talk 12:32, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Breaking Public Criticism into sections?

Anyone have anything to say about it? POV destroyer 14:59, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

I was looking at a slab of two screenfuls of text. Most of which say little more than the section headings. This is going to expand further to follow events, adding headings discourages people from duplicating, if Drudge has said something the same accusation from O'Reily a day later is not notable. Two things are important here, the first is the criticism comes from a particular group of GOP supporters that are not part of the administration, and not Rove's principle circle. Second some people like drudge have made incompatible charges. --Gorgonzilla 15:06, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Furthermore all mention of the anti-semitic claims has disappeared from criticism, even if it is a canard, it should be there. There should also be criticism of the criticism.--Gorgonzilla 15:13, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

I think it got wrapped into the Political Activism section. POV destroyer 15:18, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

I added a small section. I don't think that this attack comes from anyone notable at this stage but some think it is significant it is being made. --Gorgonzilla 16:13, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

On the Flip flop Section heading, this is actually the phrase being used by the critics. The use of the term is also highly indicative of the type of criticism made. Flip flop is a pretty vaccuous criticism at the best of times, calling a change of view on the Iraq war after her son is kiled a 'flip-flop' is utterly bizare and more of a commentary on the terms of US political debate than anything else. So even though it appears to be POV, the headline is a very appropriate summary of the criticisms made by Drudge, Malkin and o'reily. It is also indicative of the savage nature and the pointlessness of the attacks. --Gorgonzilla 16:13, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Flip flop is a metaphor that is okay to use in quoting the critic, but not an appropriate section title. The line would go something like this... "Drudge refers to Sheehans change of position as a 'flip-flop' (make link to appropriate explanation of the metaphor). A primary or secondary source must be cited for this. Americanus 17:00, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Hey what happened to the criticism section? There is now no reference at all to either the 'change of mind' or the 'extreeme left wing' attacks. Instead we have the completely irrelevant refusal to appear on Bill o'Really's shout radio show. A refusal to attend a debate on equal terms might be relevant, but refusing to appear on a partisan radio show where the host specializes in shouting down guests is standard procedure for anyone with any sense. George Bush has refused to appear on Air America, big deal. This is really not representative of the criticism being made, not even by O'Rielly. --Gorgonzilla 03:33, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

• That's the sound of POV chipping away so subtly that you don't even notice things are gone. I think some objected to the spurious, substance-less, and partisan nature of the attacks, as well as the fact that the seemingly pro-Bush quotes given by Sheehan in the interview after her first meeting were not accompanied by the anti-Bush ones from the same interview. Why not dig back about 100 or so edits and put some of the criticism back, if you think it's notable? Badagnani 03:40, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Fear

'"I’m not in favor of what she (Sheehan) is saying," Healy said. "But, I’m absolutely proud she has the right to say that. It’s really the triumph of our democracy, but I’m fearful the enemies will use it against us."' --- Natalie Healy [26]

The only thing that this comment shows is that Healy is experiencing fear; fear that something will happen somewhere, sometime, somereason, and in some way precipitated by Sheehan.

Healy speaks of an enemy although does not define it. Fear of something unseen, undefinable. She seems to be saying that she's afraid of fear or terror itself. It could be that she is fearful of change from the status-quo and the uncertainty of what that change would be.

'"...the only thing we have to fear is fear itself—nameless, unreasoning, unjustified terror which paralyzes needed efforts to convert retreat into advance. In every dark hour of our national life a leadership of frankness and vigor has met with that understanding and support of the people themselves which is essential to victory."' [27]

Healy also points out that all Gold Star Families are do not agree with Sheehan. I don't think that is implied anywhere, but if so, it would be okay to add that to the page on Gold Star families.

Americanus 20:10, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

The O'Riely thing

The first section in criticism is now a refutation by Sheehan. That is not NPOV folks. Bizare thing is here that it seems to have got that way because right-wingers wanted to remove the now disproven 'flip flop' charge. As it is the section does not work even as POV since the reader is not told what Sheehan is reacting to. --Gorgonzilla 03:46, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

I edited this down to just the quotes with verifiable sources. Also put in chronological order. Americanus 11:13, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

White House meeting?

Is this article inaccurate in stating that there was also a White House meeting between Bush and Sheehan? http://www.lewisnews.com/article.asp?ID=105971 Badagnani 03:35, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

I was confused about that too. I removed that citation as it went with the Fort Lewis meeting. I haven't read about a private White House meeting anywhere else. POV destroyer 03:48, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Must have just been a misunderstanding on the part of the journalist regarding the location, then. Ironic that the paper based in the town where the meeting took place got the location wrong! Badagnani 04:04, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Slate

Just added stuff from the new slate article on her. i left links on the page to the article, and to a david duke article i also referenced.

Please sign additions. The Slate article does not say anything other than what has already been said in this article. Americanus 10:43, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

False Attribution

Removing mention of the false attribution of comments by Drudge is not only POV it means the reader loses critical context for the rest of the story. When Sheehan is calling O'Reily a liar it is the repeat of the Drudge allegation she refers to. Just because Drudge and O'Reily are trying a different attack today does not mean that their previous attack is no longer notable. --Gorgonzilla 15:37, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Links for Comment Before Adding

I've seen most of the following sites before, and was hoping for some input on which ones might be appropirate or germaine to the article.

• Iraqi Body Count - 23,589 fatalities, civilian only
• Iraq Coalition Casualty Count - 2,056 fatalities -> 1,862 from USA
• Body Count Comparison - one icon per death
• Military Personnel Wounded in Iraq & Afghanistan - some graphic images of American soldiers
• National Priorities Project - where our federal tax money is going
• Cost of War to Taxpayers - with alternative uses for our money

Which is most worthwhile?

Americanus 17:14, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Iraq Coalition Casualty Count, it is the most neutral of the sites, just the facts, it is also regularly updated and has been widely linked to. --Gorgonzilla 20:19, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Emphasis on the Article

How ridiculous is it that we have an article about this crackpot wench and not her son? TDC 17:22, August 18, 2005 (UTC)

• From TDC's own user page TDC: "Described as one of the most prolific troll from my friends at Nazimedia and banned from too many chat rooms to mention, I feel Wikipedia is both an opportuntiy to inform as well as persuade." I couldn't have said it better. Badagnani 17:27, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

You could have not said it at all and spared the servers the memory. That would have said it better TDC 17:30, August 18, 2005 (UTC)

Criticism/praise

I notice that the criticism section (including excruciating detail from every Tom, Dick, and Rush) has grown quite large--nearly half the length of the entire article. In an effort to emulate FOX and be fair and balanced, should we not add a section including five or six long testimonials from those praising what Sheehan is doing, stating its importance to contributing to an end to the war and the troops coming home, etc.?

This isn't meant to be funny; the article, like all on WP, should be encyclopedic and free from bias, thus balanced in terms of who is praising and who is criticizing. Those with the power (i.e. holding the microphones) don't necessarily believe the same way as the public, a large percentage of whom seem to be behind Sheehan, if not so vocal about it. I think there were about 1,600 vigils in support of Sheehan around these 50 states yesterday so someone out there isn't quite so critical of this grieving mother. Badagnani 19:23, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Very good point. Some articles have proponents and opponents. The article should definitely have some good proponent sources. Very well known and respected people. Americanus 20:16, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

I think that there should be some comments from critics of the critics. For example media matters has exposed Drudge as an outright liar, crooks and liars has documented numerous ridiculous chages (including his latest bizare claim that Sheehan's story is fake, is Rush loosing it?). Salon has an article on the attacks, there are articles in several of the papers. Much of the criticism stands for itself, Limbaugh and O'Reily were both chickenhawk draft-dodgers and they are busy sliming the mother of a fallen soldier. --Gorgonzilla 20:24, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Salam Pax "Quote"

Prominent Iraqi blogger, Salam Pax, wrote an open letter...

The link to this "Salam Pax Quote" [28], is on the site of a different blogger, "Iraq The Model". Am I missing something completely dumb, or is this quote misattributed to the wrong blogger? --Bletch 21:18, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Sheehan's comments on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict

From the article:

Concerning the Israeli-Palestinian conflict she has said, "you get America out of Iraq and Israel out of Palestine and you'll stop the terrorism."

Someone added the assertion that Sheehan denied making this statement, and cited this to support it. I reverted the edit because I don't see Sheehan address this particular quote anywhere in that article. Davetrainer 23:49, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

The denial is sourced a heck of a lot better than the accusation. This looks to me like an excuse to put words in Sheehan's mouth and then demand a categorical denial for each one. The onus is on the people making the initial claim here.--Gorgonzilla 00:10, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

The article listed the allegations arising from the ABC memo twice. That is wrong. Sheehan has actally denied all the allegations [29]:

COOPER: You were also quoted as saying, "My son joined the Army to protect America, not Israel. If you get America out of Iraq and Israel out of Palestine, and you'll stop the terrorism." How responsible do you believe Israel is for the amount of terrorism in the world?

SHEEHAN: I didn't say that.

COOPER: You didn't say that? OK.

SHEEHAN: I didn't say that my son died for Israel. I've never said that. I saw somebody wrote that, and it wasn't my words. Those aren't even words that I would say.

I do believe that the Palestinian issue is a hot issue that needs to be solved, and it needs to be more fair and equitable, but I never said my son died for Israel.

POV Trainer

"Along with criticizing the Bush Administration and the War in Iraq, Sheehan has been vocal in her attacks on Israel and US foreign policy. Concerning the Israeli-Palestinian conflict she has said, "you get America out of Iraq and Israel out of Palestine and you'll stop the terrorism." [10]. Cindy Sheehan denies ever making such statements [11]."

This wording states that it is a fact that Sheehan made the statement. No proof has been provided to disprove the denial. Ergo at the very least the wording is highly POV.

But if you read the article linked you will discover it is actually sourced back to the same ABC letter that is discssed in the very next paragraph. So quit the revert war. --Gorgonzilla 02:47, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

All I can say is that Sheehan's email sent to Nightline is posted on a Google group in March. Unless she is stating that it was altered when it was posted by her friends to their own Google group, it seems unlikely that that original posting from March 2005 has changed, as it was 5 months before this current controversy. POV destroyer 02:48, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

That is in the paragraph that is still there. The paragraph I deleted was a repeat that preceded it and cited a wingnut blog rather than ABC.--Gorgonzilla 02:51, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

I believe the "Israel out of Palestine" remark was a quote from her speech to Veterans For Peace convention. I'm not sure how you prove she didn't say it unless you listen to a recording of her speech and you don't hear it. Otherwise we wouldn't be able to cite half the press sources that we use for quotes and such. Are you saying the original source for the quotes from her speech is unreliable? Is there a recording of her speech? POV destroyer 03:01, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

OK here is what I have discovered, we are both right

• The ABC letter is quoted as the source of 2 sets of comments about Israel, one the PNAC one in the article, the second the 'Israel out of Palestine' comment
• The Google groups comment only contains the PNAC comment
• Ergo the Google groups message actually proves Sheehan's denial of the Israel out comment.

--Gorgonzilla 03:02, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

BTW saying that the PNAC folk are pro-Likud is not exactly a controvertial claim. Nor does it seem to be one of the things being denied.--Gorgonzilla 03:02, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

I found the authentic transcript which proves she did say "Israel out of Palestine": [30]

She said it, but not in the email. Where is a cite that alleges she said it in the email? If you want to put in a new paragraph saying she believes isreal should not be in palestine, fine, but it apparently has nothing to do with the email controversy Pencil Pusher 03:57, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Critics section

Why is there a section that breaks down "critics" person-by-person? I've never seen this done on any of the 4900+ other articles I've ever edited. Half of these folks are from Fox News. Shouldn't they all be clumped under one title, ie "Rupert Murdoch"? Seriously though, this section is ridiculous. At the very least, the subheading names need to be elminated, and probably most of the quotes can be trimmed down or removed without losing any information. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-08-19 03:51

I've removed most of the unnecessary quotes. If people want quotes, they need only click the citations. I've also removed the subheadings and the criticisms from random unknowns (although I've heard of Fred Barnes, he is by no means as notable as Drudge, O'Reilly, or Limbaugh). — BRIAN0918 • 2005-08-19 04:14

Excellent points. The "Critics" section had become a transparent campaign to discredit the article's subject through a "data dump" of Fox/Drudge/National Review smears. The full transcript of G. Gordon Liddy's (!) smear on Sheehan took the section from the deplorable into the laughable. Thanks for fixing it.

User:Pencil Pusher (who has made all of 42 edits) has made the most POV edit I've ever seen. Somehow, this user has fluidly converted the section from "criticisms" into "accusations", and endorsed all of these views as legitimate based on their existence alone! What a feat! — BRIAN0918 • 2005-08-19 04:21

have you read the section? actually read it? cause I have news for you, the POV you think i have is exactly wrong. Pencil Pusher 04:29, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

You need to read WP:NPOV. Do you even realize how ridiculous your edits are? It's extremely POV before the reader even gets to the content. Don't you realize this? — BRIAN0918 • 2005-08-19 04:30

Nice. You admit the content is NPOV, but the very existance of the section is POV. Very Nice. See my other comment below. Pencil Pusher 04:40, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Hey, Pencil Pusher: I get a kick out of reverting pathetically POV edits. So, if you manage to sneak any of your nonsense past Brian, I'll be happy to revert it. And Brian: You are doing excellent yeoman's work keeping the page honest. "Pencil Pusher" realizes exactly what he's doing, and should seek work writing captions on Fox News. -- Eleemosynary

I'm trying very hard to not call you both names. CS has been slimed by the right wing media. They have pulled out the stops to trash her. This is very much a part of the story. If either of you WOULD HAVE BOTHERED TO READ THE SECTION you would have seen that ever single right wing slime was, in a total NPOV fashion, discredited. Reading comprehension is your friend. Pencil Pusher 04:39, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Nice Try, Pencil Pusher. Sorry; it won't wash. Here's an idea: Try not publishing discredited smears. That helps to, um, discredit them. Yeesh. And, by the way, I DID READ THE SECTION (see, I can use CAPS LOCK too) and you made NO MENTION that the SMEARS were DISCREDITED. -- Eleemosynary

yes, that would be violating NPOV. To say bill o'reily was talking out of his ass would be inappropriate. Instead I put each criticsm into context so... get this... so the reader can decide whether the criticsm was warranted. Pencil Pusher 04:58, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

No, what you did was to attempt to legitimize the smears, and then attempt to hide behind "hey, I was just letting the reader decide" nonsense. Sort of like "We report; you decide," huh?

Hey, man. You got caught. Sucks for you. Get over it.

No, what sucks is that there are so many of you who are so dense and so paranoid that you can't even recognize a friend. Pencil Pusher 05:29, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Why don't you take a look at my history of edits before you say "nice try" for example: changing

In interviews about this meeting given more than a year later she states that she was offended by how Bush behaved at the meeting. She states that Bush acted is if the meeting were a party, rather than a somber meeting with families of slain veterans, that he kept calling her "Ma" or "Mom," and that he didn't seem to know the gender of her child, referring to him only as "your loved one."

to

The following July 4th she gave an interview [31] where she described the meeting as "one of the most disgusting experiences I ever had and it took me almost a year to even talk about it." In that interview, she described President Bush as being "detached from humanity." She said, "His mouth kept moving, but there was nothing in his eyes or anything else about him that showed me he really cared or had any real compassion at all." She claimed, "He didn’t even know our names," asking "Who we’all honorin’ here today?" when he first entered the room, and then referring to her as "Ma or Mom."

or

She believes that the Iraq and Afghanistan Wars are merely part of "a neo-con agenda that only benefits a very chosen few in this world." [32]

to

In a letter to author William Rivers Pitt, she stated, "And most importantly and devastatingly, this war is based on lies and betrayals. Not one American soldier, nor one Iraqi should have been killed. Common sense would dictate that not one more person should be killed for lies. One of the people, my son, was more than enough for me and my family. I will live in unbearable pain until I die. First of all, because my first born was killed violently, and second of all, because he was killed for a neo-con agenda that only benefits a very chosen few in this world. This agenda and their war machine will chew up and spit out as many of our children as they can unless we stop them now." [33]

or

She has also referred to President Bush as "Führer" in an editorial relating her experience on a recent Larry King Live show. [34]

to

In another editorial relating her experience on a June 28th, 2005 Larry King Live show she described President Bush as having "moronic and callous foreign policies" and said Senator John Warner "fell in lockstep behind his Führer." She said, "this war is a catastrophe" and "we should bring the troops home and quit forcing the Iraqi people to pay for our government's hubris and quit forcing innocent children to suffer so we can allegedly fight terrorism somewhere besides America. How absolutely racist and immoral is it to take America's battles to another land and make an entire country pay for the crimes of others? To me, this is blatant genocide." [35] Pencil Pusher 04:51, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for claiming to be "on her side". Rather than babble on about something as pointless as your view, I will summarize: allegation != criticism, and the opinions of non-notables like Fred Barnes and some random people with internet connections, (ie, "bloggers") do not matter to this article. By laying out all of their opinions as "criticisms", and giving them all their own headings, you're saying that Wikipedia not only fully believes these opinions, but endorses them. I'm not saying you can't include their views; they could be quickly summarized, such as "other claims include...", but giving them their own headers is ridiculous, and all that quoting is completely unnecessary. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-08-19 04:46

Did I introduce a single criticm? Was it me who put a single critic in the article? No. I took every existing criticism, put them in context. I say again: part of this story is how the right has reacted to CS. Glossing over this fact makes an incomplete article.Pencil Pusher 04:58, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

No, what you did is try to legitimize the smears. The issue of the right-wing attack on the subject is addressed clearly in one sentence at the top of the criticism section. You must be very bored tonight. -- Eleemosynary

No, what i did was put every single one of the smears in contex. When someone put in a criticsm that "she changed her position" I put in the relevant sections from article, showing she was, at best conflicted. Pencil Pusher 05:20, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Okay, PP, it's getting sad now. You're grasping at straws, and posting paragraphs of posts/revisions that have nothing to do with the point at hand: You attempted to turn the page into a laughably POV screed, were caught and reverted, and are now trying to save face. Lucidity might be a friend with whom you may want to acquaint yourself.

Does paranoia work for you? Not everyone is against you. Any fair minded, rational person would see you are... well... i let them insert the correct term. Pencil Pusher

And you'll be addressing my question when, exactly?

What was the question, exactly? Pencil Pusher 05:16, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Why are you hiding behind "I was just trying to let the reader decide" when you clearly had a POV agenda?

Why do you have such a hard time with reading comprehension? Once again, part of the story is how the right wing treated CS. The article had a number of right wing critisms when I got here. I changed each one to more accurately reflect the truth. As is common with right wing criticsm, there was a kernel of truth in each one. I put the context in each one so that any reader with above an 80 IQ could decide for themselves that the critisms were baseless. This is a critical part of the story. Unfortunately, I've encountered a number of borderline-retarded editors who simply can't comprehend this. Pencil Pusher 05:29, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

No problem whatseover with reading comprehension. I have a problem with liars, of which you are one. Now that you've been cornered, your anger and frustration are bleeding into your self-righteous justifications for your POV edit. It was only a matter of time.

I am always angered and frustrated at people who are so dense that light bends around their heads. BTW, you were the one who started with the attacks, I just decided to dish it out as good as I got. You say I made 42 edits. Isn't it curious that not a single one was reverted until now? Isn't it curious that people were watching each one of my edits and believed them to be fair. Isn't it curious you can't come up with a single NPOV word that was written by me, and your only argument is, "but you acknowledged that critism exists." Well, you may not be able to appreciate these nuances, but luckily others around here have some pretty solid heads on their shoulders. Pencil Pusher 06:00, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

• May I try to mediate here? I've been working with this article for a while now and believe the criticism section needs to be factual and concise. I agree that there should not be a subsection for each RW critic, as they are all more or less on the same page. But it is important that each criticism be described, as they seem to come in waves and show a coordinated smear campaign. First criticism: she changed her story; second criticism: she is a pawn of "far-left elements"; third criticism: her story is "not real"; fourth criticism: she's an anti-Semite. Please do not purge such criticism under the belief that anyone who mentions them is in tacit agreement with them. Let's work together to create a factual, concise section summarizing the critics' tactics concisely. In fact, making note of the things that have been said to try to impugn this woman (including the earlier, discredited statements like the one implying that her story has been inconsistent) say a lot more about the critics than the subject of the criticism. Badagnani 05:34, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Halleluiah! Someone with a brain! May I suggest using as a starting point the 1400 words that were deleted before the "anyone who mentions them is in tacit agreement with them" crowd got their hands on the article. Pencil Pusher 05:38, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

"Pencil Pusher's" nonsense notwithstanding, I would propose we do not list the RW smears under the heading of "Criticism," which lends undue credence to the smearers. Perhaps a heading of "Smear Campaign" or "Attacks" would be more fitting. "Criticism" implies thoughtful, cogent reasoning. It's also not necessary to post such ridiculous things as the Liddy Transcript, or what one National Review editor said about an unknown blogger. The amount of RW criticism that was left in the article AFTER Brian0918's rv should suffice. Eleemosynary 05:38, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

• "Attacks" does makes sense as well. To be honest, I thought the section was fine before Pencil Pusher's additions, as afterwards it became too long and had many long direct quotes (esp. the Liddy transcript) which could have been summarized in a few words, with links to the original articles. This article has to remain readable and the "criticism"/"attacks" section shouldn't give the impression of dominating the article. Similar attacks were made against Martin Luther King but wouldn't it be weird if a long "criticism" section full of desperate smears against him ("he's nothing but a left-wing rabble rouser") appeared in an article about him? Badagnani 05:51, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

I didn't put in the Liddy transcript. The Liddy transcript was a late addition. Actually, as I said before, I didn't put in a single critism. I added context to each critism so that they could be analyzed. Yes, context adds length, but how else can you diffuse "she would also object to her son being killed in afghanistan" or "she said the president was sincere". Pencil Pusher 06:00, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Seriously, give it up.

One can only hope.

For posterity, this was the section whose mere mention was NPOV...

Good thing it's gone.

Criticisms

Since embarking on her vigil in early August 2005, Sheehan has been criticized by various individuals. Media criticism of her has been most vociferous from the right wing.

Inconsistent position

On 7 August 2005, Internet news analyst and conservative talk radio host Matt Drudge alleged that Sheehan had been inconsistent in her support for the war. He cited a 24 June 2004 interview article with Sheehan, which took place after her meeting with him.[36]. The article [37] describes a conflicted Sheehan:

But as their meeting with the president approached, the family was faced with a dilemma as to what to say when faced with Casey's commander-in-chief. "We haven't been happy with the way the war has been handled," Cindy said. "The president has changed his reasons for being over there every time a reason is proven false or an objective reached."

Cindy said she felt [a form letter expressing the President's condolences] was an impersonal gesture.

"I now know he's sincere about wanting freedom for the Iraqis," Cindy said after their meeting. "I know he's sorry and feels some pain for our loss. And I know he's a man of faith."

Cindy spoke about Casey and asked the president to make her son's sacrifice count for something.

While meeting with Bush, as well as Sen. John McCain, R-Arizona, was an honor, it was almost a tangent benefit of the trip. The Sheehans said they enjoyed meeting the other families of fallen soldiers, sharing stories, contact information, grief and support.

"That was the gift the president gave us, the gift of happiness, of being together," Cindy said.

Refusal to appear on The O'Reilly Factor

On 9 August, The O'Reilly Factor television program host Bill O'Reilly announced that Sheehan would appear on the next evening's episode of his program. During that same show he said various things about her, including:

"I think she has been hijacked by some very, very far left elements."

"She has thrown in -- there is no question that she has thrown in with the most radical elements in this country."

"Other American families who have lost sons and daughters in Iraq, who feel that this kind of behavior borders on treasonous."

"There are some people who hate this government, hate their country right now, and blaming Bush for all the terrorism and all the horror in the world."[38]

On 10 August, O'Reilly wrote:

"Ms. Sheehan told us she would appear on “The Factor” this evening, but she backed out a few hours ago, saying I lied about her."[39]

That same day she told a blogger, via telephone:

"Well, I’m not going to go on his show because, you know I don’t like it when people lie about me and attack me for exercising my freedom of speech. You know, it’s one thing for Bill O’Reilly to disagree with my politics and my view on the war, but it’s absolutely another thing that he attacked me personally about it. And he actually asked me to go on the show again today, and I said - my first reaction was all right I’ll go on it if he publicly apologizes for lying about me but then my second reaction was no, I’m not going on it, I’m not going to dignify his show by my presence because I believe his show is an obscenity. It’s an obscenity to the truth and it’s an obscenity to humanity."[40]

Falsified story

On 11 August 2005, during Fox News Channel's "Special Report with Brit Hume", political commentator Fred Barnes said:

"My view is, is there any left-wing publicity hound who the media won't build up? You have Joe Wilson, you have Bill Burkett, you know the guy that sold CBS on the story about Bush last fall and now you have this woman. This woman wants to go in and tell the President that the war is about oil because the President wants to pay off his buddies. She's a crackpot, and yet the press treats her as some important protester."[41]

On the 15 August 2005 episode of The Rush Limbaugh Show, host Limbaugh said:

"I mean, Cindy Sheehan is just Bill Burkett. Her story is nothing more than forged documents. There's nothing about it that's real, including the mainstream media's glomming onto it. It's not real. It's nothing more than an attempt. It's the latest effort made by the coordinated left."[42]

Disagreement with relatives

In an email conversation with Matt Drudge, Casey's paternal aunt Cherie Quartarolo is quoted as saying:

"We do not agree with the political motivations and publicity tactics of Cindy Sheehan. She now appears to be promoting her own personal agenda and notoriety at the the expense of her son's good name and reputation. The rest of the Sheehan Family supports the troops, our country, and our President, silently, with prayer and respect."

Quartarolo signs the email:

"Casey Sheehan's grandparents, aunts, uncles and numerous cousins."

Quartarolo does not mention the individual names of the aunts, uncles, or cousins.

During a series of interviews published on several websites, Sheehan said:

"My in-laws sent out a press conference disagreeing with me in strong terms; which is totally okay with me, because they barely knew Casey..."

"We have always been on separate sides of the fence politically and I have not spoken to them since the elections when they supported the man who is responsible for Casey’s death."[43]

Sheehan also told Salon.com:

"...my immediate family, Casey's dad and my three children and my sister, we're all on the same page. And I really think that some of my husband's siblings are with us too." [44]

Dede Miller, Sheehan's sister and Casey's aunt, is supportive of Sheehan's actions and joined her at Crawford early in the protest.[45]

Disagreement with other families

On 15 August 2005 Matt and Toni Matula, parents of the late Matthew Matula, a Texas Marine killed in Iraq, requested that the white cross representing their dead son as a victim of the war in Iraq be removed, stating that they did not wish their son's name to be part of an anti-war demonstration. Mr. Matula said, "It's fine for people to grieve their own way. It aggravates me to see them using other people's names to further their cause." [46]

Treatment of 9/11

Stephen Spruiell from National Review’s Media Welbog also criticized Sheehan for an April 27 2005 speech given at San Francisco State University for imprisoned NLG member Lynne Stewart, where Sheehan raised questions about the September 11th attacks. [47] In the speech Sheehan said:

"I’m going all over the country telling moms: his country is not worth dying for. If we’re attacked, we would all go out. We’d all take whatever we had. I’d take my rolling pin and I’d beat the attackers over the head with it. But we were not attacked by Iraq. {applause} We might not even have been attacked by Osama bin Laden if {applause}. 9/11 was their Pearl Harbor to get their neo-con agenda through and, if I would have known that before my son was killed, I would have taken him to Canada. I would never have let him go and try and defend this morally repugnant system we have. The people are good, the system is morally repugnant." {applause}[48]

Anti-semitism

On 17 August, on Fox New's "Hannity & Colmes", G. Gordon Liddy accused Cindy Sheehan of being an anti-semite. According to the partial transcript from the show posted on MediaMatters.org:

LIDDY: Well, I think that it's true that there are Americans who feel the way Cindy Sheehan does. Unfortunately, they are Americans who are very anti-Israel and, in some ways, anti-Semitic. She uses the term how the "neocons" are doing this thing -- that's code word for "the Jews in the Pentagon." She has made statements such as --

ALAN COLMES (co-host): Are you calling her anti-Semitic?

LIDDY: Yes. If she gets Israel out of Palestine, then we can get out of Iraq. I mean, check out her statements, she's way out there.

COLMES: Cindy Sheehan's anti-Semitic?

LIDDY: Yes.

COLMES: That's outrageous.

SEAN HANNITY (co-host): It's outrageous what has been said.

ELEANOR CLIFT (Newsweek contributing editor): That is almost not worth responding to.

LIDDY: Look at her statements. Look at her statements and judge for yourself.

CLIFT: Look at your statements.

Vandalism by POV Destroyer

POV 'Destroyer' has turned to outright vandalism. He removed the context for a quote saying he 'did not see the need for it' yet does not seem to want to debate the change. In fact he has reverted three times now giving a completely misleading explanation of the edit. I find the title 'POV Destroyer' to be insulting and arrogant, it essentially accuses other wikipedians of bad faith when they oppose his highly POV edits. He appears to be intent on pursuing a partisan political agenda here.--Gorgonzilla 02:19, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

POV 'Destroyer' also removed a sentence stating that "Media criticism of [Sheehan] has been most vociferous by right-wing personalites." I fail to see what about that sentence merited its removal. It does not disparage the right-wing personalities, nor does it praise Ms. Sheehan. It's a statement of fact, and should remain. Gorgonzilla makes a good point. --Eleemosynary 02:19, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

Eleemosynary, you state "three examples follow". I recommend that you reword/style that by simply providing the specific attributions. For example, on the Comedy Central's Jon Stewart's Daily Show I believe Wednesday August 17 (need a fact check) he showed about four rapid fire attacks on Sheehan's credibility by the opposition that looked like they were taken off FOX news channel. In any case "three examples follow" reads like a term paper. Kyle Andrew Brown 05:24, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

Well, actually, we've been through the "specific attribution" controversy before in the talk section. I'm just going to remove the "three examples" sentence. -- Eleemosynary

Whoa, whoa whoa. What are you talking about? The fact that I thought mentioning the bike ride and which reporter wrote his quotes down was an unimportant detail? Do we mention what anyone, who is quoted by the media, is doing while being quoted? Or the name of the reporter that is quoting them? That is why I thought it an unimportant detail. Gorgonzilla, from reading your contributions to this discussion page I think you ought to be looking at yourself as far as partisan bias. I have gotten rid of right-wing POV as well as left-wing POV. And Eleemosynary, you don't think "vociferous by right-wing personalities" is POV? I don't know what to tell you. I think some of you don't really understand what neutrality in writing means. POV destroyer 11:34, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

No, "POV Destroyer," "vociferous by right-wing personalities" is not only non-POV, it's also far more accurate than the version to which you changed it. Is it POV to call Drudge, Limbaugh, and O'Reilly "right wing"? Of course not. Is it POV to characterize their quoted statements (and other statements made in the media by Liddy, Horowitz, Barnes, et al. as "vociferous"? It may not be pleasing to right-wing supporters, but it's not POV. You are exhibiting a rather rightward bias in your edits. And, contrary to your presumptuous and boorish handle, you are exhibiting a good deal of POV. In short, remove the plank from your own eye. I'll be watching your edits for further POV, and reverting them.

Eleemosynary

And I'm calling you out Gorgonzilla, you show me one example of a "POV edit" that I have done. I have worked with others here to present just the facts on this topic. You and other overt partisans on here seem to be the only ones who have a problem with me. I think you need to read my quote. It fits you perfectly. POV destroyer 11:46, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

Ok, I think I see what is going on here. Last night I made one edit and every time I went to save it, it gave me an ERROR. So I kept clicking on Refresh and clicking Retry to try it again. After looking at the history it appears that all of those saves eventually made it into Wikipedia's database thus making it look like I kept reverting back changes others had made. POV destroyer 11:53, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

Larry King

In this section it starts: "In another editorial" which should probably be reworded, because when the guests are on the program they are not usually described as giving editorials.Kyle Andrew Brown 03:06, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

Bike Ride

the reason it has been showing up as "bike ride" is because that is how Ken Herman reported it in his nationally syndicated column. I'm not sure about changing his wording. He was not trying to be formal. What think all? Kyle Andrew Brown 05:55, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

It's not that big a deal but this is an encyclopedia article and you'd never see it as "bike" in that context. If it was part of a quote, then it would be fine. Badagnani 06:59, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

I see that the stated reasoning for keeping the detail about giving an interview before going for a bike ride was to "show Bush's priorities". Now I'm asking everyone, does that sound neutral? POV destroyer 11:55, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

I kinda think Bush and aids set up the quick standup in the context of the bike ride as a backdrop - they knew what would be videod and the scene of the interview. When a president speaks in Washington it is routine to report that "in the the East Room", "in the Rose garden", "on Air Force One." For some reason it is American journo style to state the place and circumstances of presidential remarks. Maybe it is partly because it provides the tone of softness or hardness of the presidential comments.

Here to include the bike ride setting establishes it was not a "major address" in prime time tv, rather a casual standup that - and by White House standards should be considered made in a more casual rather than formal context. The setting of presidential remarks IS carefully choreographed and I would suggest appropriate to report. Kyle Andrew Brown 14:01, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

The quote immediately following comments directly on Bush's priorities. And most news accounts of the quote put it in the context of the bike ride. Removing it three times without refering to talk was not acceptable. As for bicycle/bike, he was on a mountain bike, has anyone ever heard of a 'mountain bicycle?'. Should the article on record player be headed 'gramophone'?--Gorgonzilla 12:28, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

Myself, I'm leaning towards bike ride because that is how the journo tabbed it and Gorgonzilla's point about going on a bike ride like a mountain bike sounds more, well :sporty, than a merry bicycle ride in the 50's.

Also, If any reverts were made after Talk started that is a not good form. This article is not going to become a Revert Warriors site. The battle lines are in the real world! Thanks for noticing that.

Anyway, let's get this refered quickly. And demostrate we can do it. Kyle Andrew Brown 13:53, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

Talk Archieve

I deleted it because the back end server kept barfing on attempted updates, probably because the log was 114K. There is a link to the archive. I am trying to search the archive to copy the still relevant material back here. Trying the opposite way round simply wasn't working, the server kept giving edit conflicts because you were editing. Feel free to rescue anything. I stuck some subheads in to make parallel edits possible. --Gorgonzilla 14:22, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

The server itself was suggesting it was too long each time an edit was added. Furthermore everyone seemed to be ignoring previous comments on topics which suggested to me the log was too long for people to bother reading. Everything is in the archived talk. --Gorgonzilla 15:35, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

Personal Life

Yeah, about her personal life. Why is there ZERO mention of deleted per policy due to the fact she deleted per policy. Also, how she deleted per policy? And why she deleted per policy? I mean, why is there no section on her life prior to deleted per policy?

--Possibly to keep deleted per policy as a suffering mother in the wake of her son's death. Shame her son died, of course, but it would be nice if this article had more information about her life before she became an activist, rather than pretending that that's where her life began.

Please sign all posts by adding four tildes after your post, thanks. The supposed divorce referenced above is an urban legend. See http://www.snopes.com/politics/war/sheehan.asp Badagnani 06:31, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

The headstone is mentioned here: Casey Sheehan. Badagnani 06:32, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

---I'm sorry, but shouldn't the bit about the headstone be included on this page, not the son's page? The son was not responsible for providing his own headstone, the woman that received the Death Gratuity was. You can find a fully researched article about it on snopes.com. That would at least attempt to add some neutrality to this article. 74.4.131.70 (talk) 23:47, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Why is there no mention about her personal life? Sullynyflhi 18:01, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

The above story about a divorce when Casey was a youngster is an Internet hoax. They divorced in 2006 or 2007. Her personal life is not particularly notable, unless you are a gossip columnist. --Habap 22:38, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I think her personal life is the entire reason why she gained notoriety. I think when she deleted per policy is notable enough for inclusion in an article this long, especially since (if I remember right) it played into why she decided to stop being a part of the peace anti-war movement, at least in May '07. If it's not mentioned here simply because it would "tarnish her image", well there are plenty of people who deleted per policy. --User:anonymous surfer 79.72.94.237 01:23, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Anti-Israeli

I recently put in a minor edit calling sheehan anti-Israeli activist it was deleted because the other editor claimed it was not important to the description of Sheehan. I disagree Sheehan shows her anti-Israeli and Anti-American attitudes at ANSWER rallies and other speeches and if she can be called the Peace Mom these other facts are equally valid.Tannim 09:22, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

What someone did was to add, at the very top paragraph, "anti-Israel activist." It's simply incorrect; she is an anti-Iraq War activist. Her statement(s) about Israel as they relate to her opposition to the Iraq Ware are already discussed in the article. Badagnani 09:26, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Tannim, while she may be directly opposed to Israel and talk about it at rallies (I've seen videos of such), it is not what she is known for. As such, it doesn't belong in the introductory paragraph. As Badagnani states, her position on Israel is already covered in the article. If don't feel it has enough emphasis, please discuss how it might be improved. Thanks! --Habap 13:07, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Is there no way to criticize Israel without being "anti-Israeli"? If that is so, then I would imagine close to 100% of Israelis are themselves "anti-Isreali". Ditto with the "anti-American" statement. As for her being called the "Peace Mom" I think it's really a nickname, though perhaps a bad one. Perhaps the different nomenclatures could be considered equivalent if they were all put in quotes as signifying what some people call her. In reality she is simply a woman who is opposed to aggressive warfare as outlined in all the international conventions the U.S. has signed and thus made the supreme law of the land. It does appear that the law is relatively meaningless these days. Macsenrut 21:24, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Remove the Peace Mom as it make her nobler than she is or put or Terrorist Sympathizer which a equal number of people regard her as. —Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])

I don't find Peace Mom as an ennobling nickname, though her supporters see it as such. I think it lumps her in with another great peace proponent, Neville Chamberlain. --Habap 12:42, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

And who is to make the judgment that she is a 'great peace proponent'? One could argue the opposite based on an alternate POV (i.e. she undermines national policy leading to extended conflict, etc), or one could also argue that there are those who have dubbed her with nicknames far less flattering then 'Peace Mom'. Her arbitrary pet names are irrelevant and serve as agenda propping. Let's keep it to the non-disputable Who, When, Where, What, Why, and How only.

BOTTOM LINE: Wikipedia is not a place for editorial or opinions, yours or mine. Stay neutral when you make content contributions or make arguments on the talk page. --Tolstoy143 08:47, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Did it occur to you that being linked to Neville Chamberlain fits in nicely with your evaluation " she undermines national policy leading to extended conflict". Those who campaign for peace at any price are doomed to see aggression in response, as we all saw in Chamberlain's case.

She is widely known as the "Peace Mom" whether we agree with her or not. If any of the less-flattering nicknames get widely used, they should be listed also. --Habap 15:03, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

A good portion of American (deleted per policy). Fox News Jan 6, 2006. I think her (deleted per policy) should have equal balance with her Anti Iraq activism.Skypad 19:24, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Cindy Sheehan was protesting GITMO but refused to condem Castro for his far worse prisons, another example of (deleted per policy). FoxNews channel Jan 11th 2006.Skypad 03:04, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Please don't quote Fox "news". That makes you look like an idiot. Fox "news" is simply the propaganda arm of the Republican party. It is a fact that people who get their news from Fox are the most misinformed. They still tend to believe that Iraq was behind 9/11, harboured Al Queda and had WMDs, all false.

That, my friend, is an opinion. You're certainly entitled to have an opinion, but this is not the place for it.Kf4mgz 15:00, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Edit of 2006 activism proposed for concensus

Under the section Chronology of activism > 2006 activism, I think a change is needed to the sentence that includes the phrase; "fantasies of suicide and revenge against President Bush" to better reflect her fantasy of time travel and intention of killing an infant George W. Bush. I believe this will better reflect her "fantasies" than a mere mention of revenge which really doesn't reflect the scope of her intentions. Durbinmj 04:29, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Any objections? Durbinmj 23:38, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I think it would be better to leave it as it is, Durbinmj. The paragraph about her book doesn't have much to do with "2006 activism" anyway. And I don't see that her "fantasies" belong in this article. Perhaps in that separate "Support and Criticism" article. Pgc512 01:17, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Removed irrelevant sentence

removed:

 She is sometimes referred to by the media as the "Peace Mom".

because it does not contribute to the article and only few news sources refer to her as 'Peace Mom.' --Maniwar (talk) 19:13, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I thought of reverting this, but wonder, do they still refer to her that way or just as Cindy Sheehan? --Habap 19:19, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Don't be so quick to revert. It holds no relevance being placed in the first section. It is already mentioned in the main body and again, not all media considered her to be this. --Maniwar (talk) 19:21, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Note that I only thought about reverting. I didn't do it because I wondered if the media (not just Sheehan herself, esp in her book title) actually still used it. I don't think that her detractors in the media have settled on any one name and the sentence doesn't state "she is always referred to by all media outlets as the Peace Mom", so the argument about whether it is all is not relevant. In a quick Google search, I only found references from 2005. --Habap 16:40, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I think it is a quick way of identifying her - as in "oh yeah, she's that 'Peace Mom'". That is relevant enough to put it in the 1st paragraph, perhaps with a change of tense to " she was sometimes called " ... Pgc512 01:22, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

POV Tag Redux

So, are the issues above resolved? I am still unsure as discussion simply seemed to stop on some issues while others are clearly resolved. If no one objects, I would like to remove the POV tag as it looks quite silly up there. (The neutrality of this POV_TAG is disputed.) --Habap 19:20, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

We should archive this "talk" page as well, because it's huge. Badagnani 19:22, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

As there is no sourcing on her being a anti Iraq war activist we should add the (deleted per policy).Tannim 22:26, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Hasn't everything she's done publicly since the Camp Casey protest been in an attempt to end the Iraq War? I'm afraid I don't understand where this question comes from because all the sources confirm it. What you're saying is comparable to saying that there isn't any proof that Martin Luther King was a civil rights activist. You can do better than this. Saying that she is (deleted per policy) seems POV to me; what is the proof for this? Badagnani 22:45, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I am in favor of removing BOTH of the neutrality flags. Pgc512 23:18, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Tannim, you're simply being ridiculous now. You've reduced your own argument to absurdity by claiming there is no sourcing for her being a anti-Iraq War activist. Please don't be petulant. If you wish to make constructive contributions, they will be welcome, but stomping for your feet and demanding that we do things your way will get you nowhere. --Habap 00:11, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

What would be considered sufficent sources? If i give 3 to this board would that be sufficent? I might point out that by your argument Habap, I should be able to list Hezbollah as a terrorist group because everything they do to Israel is terrorism, yet that ke being reverted. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tannim (talk • contribs) 06:16, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

"Terrorist" is an vague, inflamatory way to demonize people. For example, attacking and invading a country that posed no threat to us, causing the deaths of 100,000's of people, could be considered "terrorism". But I am not going to try and add that to GWB's wiki article. Pgc512 12:50, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I think that the controversy section needs to be developed with a one or two paragraph section rather than shooting readers off as pointed out, but I am leaning more towards removing the POV tags. I have gone back and re-read and see that it's not too bad an article and I see that Badagnani is not so quick to interpret things for the readers or revert other people's post which was one of the concerns. I leave it in your hands! --Maniwar (talk) 14:17, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Pgc512, you are very very wrong. Wrong wrong wrong. Terrorism is a legitimate term with fairly well-enough defined meaning. Check the wiki article since you are obviously confused. GWB can't be confused for a terrorist because he doesn't meet any of the qualifications for a terrorist. Terrorists, among other things, target civilians and act unlawfully. This obviously applies to groups such as Hezbollah, whereas by no stretch of the rational mind can it be applied to President Bush. If you tried, you'd be profoundly dishonest. Bush's Iraq policy does not target civilians, but war criminals. Civilians who have been killed in the Iraq war were never targeted by Bush's policy - the vast majority have been killed in suicide bombings, etc, by insurgents, who obviously WERE targeting civilians, qualifying them as terrorists. Don't contribute to wikipedia if you're unwilling to honestly confront facts.Jsrduck 05:54, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi Jsrduck, welcome to the discussion. Maybe you didn't know about this? Probably not, because it's not often covered in the media; this article is one of only a tiny handful about the subject. I think the half life of this material, whose dust is covering Iraq now, is 4.5 billion years, and will certainly be something that is affecting and will affect civilians essentially forever. This is the sort of thing Sheehan is concerned about and trying to stop. Badagnani 06:22, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Hey Badagnani. What you linked me to was not especially relevent to the conversation. Nobody is debating that war doesn't have side-effects, generally bad ones. We were debating the definition of terrorism - and if you're trying to respond to the point I made, and I'm not entirely sure you are, then you're suggesting that our military is deliberately targeting civilians with radioactive bullets. I don't think even the article you sent me to is suggesting that. All wars affect civilians. I'm hard pressed to think of one that doesn't. And if you're looking for proof that the war is harming civilians, I'm surprised you'd pick such a lame example (notice the lack of any mention of civilians actually harmed in that article. The article was written to warn of the potential danger). At any rate, that civilians are hurt as a byproduct of the war isn't sufficient to label Bush a terrorist. In any war, we expect civilians to be hurt as a byproduct. The US military's policy is to reduce civilian casualties (hence the article even exists). In order to qualify as a terrorist, the aggressor must target civilians, something Bush clearly has not done.Jsrduck 08:35, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Folks, discussion of the civilian costs of war and of whether Bush is a terrorist are not at all relevant to this discussion. Badagnani, please don't lead us off on a tangent. --Habap 14:22, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Tannim, you lost me there. What argument did I make? I do happen to think Hezbollah is terrorist group, and I would suppose that if you found a source, you could write "some consider Hezbollah a terrorist group". That discussion belongs on another page, though. --Habap 16:35, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

My point was that there is no sourcing when Sheehan is described as anti Iraq war activist it is accepted fact, and I think is just as much a fact that she (deleted per policy). I used the Hezbollah analogy because the P.C wikipedians block any attempt to an established fact.64.12.116.130 21:48, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

"No sourcing" that she is an anti-war activist? The very first reference in this article is to a source titled "For Some, a Loss in Iraq Turns Into Antiwar Activism," (emphasis added), which describes Sheehan's anti-war activism. It is very clearly sourced. Eron 23:30, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Habap, you seem to have a balanced view of this whole thing, and are helping to keep this page from complete chaos. Keep up the good work, and best wishes to everyone. Pgc512 22:16, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Always nice to feel appreciated. --Habap 13:58, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Weasel words

Added weasel words tag due to the use of "It should be noted that...." "Some critics...." "it has been noted by observers...." "Rumors began spreading...." etc. See WP:AWW. Durbinmj 01:01, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Good point. If the content of these sentences is correct, then perhaps the wording could be changed. Badagnani 01:05, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Restored weasel tag because none of the usage I referred to above has been corrected. Durbinmj 23:27, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

• Well, wait a sec. "It should be noted that..." is gone, as such phrases always should be extirpated. "Some critics..." has two sources and a neutrality tag; "noted by observers..." has one footnote, and the "Rmors began spreading..." is unsourced and as such needs to be zapped. You could do the deweaseling yourself, given how well sourced the sentences are. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 00:25, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm not allowed. My revisions always get reverted....Durbinmj 23:47, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Here, let me remove this Revert Me note that was taped to your back.... --Habap 23:50, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

sheehan myths?

Why do we have this, the section is only a sentence long, it seems pointless and looks like we're grasping for straws to make the article more interesting...

Pstanton 19:59, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

• Yeah, thanks for pointing that out. I zapped it. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 20:44, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Hey, i've always been told several things about Sheehan that I need clearing up on. One, she (deleted per policy). Two, President Bush already talked to her, before she organized this whole anit-war protest (President Bush talks to every family whose son/daughter was killed in Iraq/Afghanistan).71.62.99.81 15:01, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

That's an affirmative on the second part of your question. I do not know the answer to the first. After the meeting, Sheehan said that she now knows that Bush is a caring sincere person (paraphrase). I heard the interview on the radio one day. I was driving (four hour trip) and heard the her after the meeting Bush had with several mothers. I'm sure you could Google it. --Maniwar (talk) 16:04, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

The bit about her (deleted per policy) is simply wrong. Sheehan was married to Casey's father until recently and never deserted the family. She raised her son. It was simply an internet myth with no basis in fact. --Habap 19:44, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

What a Mess!

This article is a mess. Something needs to be done to stop the vandalism and the warnings, etc.. Those of you with more time and wiki experience - any ideas? Pgc512 13:28, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Seems a protect tag has been placed. Jmlk17 11:38, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

The Feinstein Thing

If you go back to the article during that period of time, you'll see that it did include mention of the Feinstein thing. However, it isn't a particularly relevant point and doesn't belong in the article. --Habap 12:29, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

==> I think its relevant as it was really the beginning of Sheehan's turn away from the Democratic Party and her condemnation of the Democratic party's failure to get us out of Iraq grows every day.

"Sheehan has 'always been a Democrat'"

Why is this the opener to the section on Sheehan's war activism? It does not follow logically that a Democrat is necessarily a peace advocate or an opponent of war. Sheehan's anti-war activism is not typical of all Democrats or an inherent quality to the Democratic platform. If Sheehan is simply showing her true Democratic colors in protesting the war, as the placement of this quote implies, why did she oppose the re-election of Democrat Dianne Feinstein in 2006, in favor of a Green Party candidate?

I'm not saying that this statement doesn't belong in the article - it's relevant to her opposition to GWB - but I think it is all wrong as the opening sentence in this section. Venicemenace 16:59, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

^^^Sheehan herself states she has both denounced and renounced all ties to the Democratic party: [[49]]

Sheehan's Hypocrisy

I suggest we add a section giving examples of Cindy Sheehans hypocrisy.

1. When protesting GITMO on Thursday, Sheehans (deleted per policy) Fox News Nov 11

2. Sheehans had spoken at ANSWER rallies (deleted per policy) Associated Press

3. Sheehans has (deleted per policy). MichelleMalkin.com

4. She is silent on (deleted per policy). Vent

This is as relevent as her Anti Iraq liberation stand. Skypad 12:01, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Reply by: VeLiKi

First, it's spelled 'Hypocrisy'. Second, I'm sure you'll find an interesting article on her on somethingawful.com - she has been ridiculed on their front page. Link: http://www.somethingawful.com/index.php?a=4405 Thing to note: the article was written by a person with strong anti-war stance. This article is interesting because she is being ridiculed by her fellow anti war brethren. Maybe it is safe to presume that she is NOT liked by each and every anti-war oriented person??

I think we should add the (deleted per policy) to the lead description she (deleted per policy).Reapor 14:42, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

General Cleanup and NPOV Questions

I just took a look at this page for the first time and frankly, I'm a bit confused. It seems to me that since there's an entire separate page for Criticism and Support, some of the later info in the "Sheehan's campaign against the Iraq war" could be removed to the other page. The NPOV question might be easier to deal with that way. The weasel words issue, though, seems tough to avoid. Also, the separation of the first section from the chronology section seems to be a bit unintuitive to me. Maybe creating a single, chronological progression which incorporates the "campaign against the war" section would help. Sorry to just criticize and not change anything, but I don't think I know enough about the topic or Wikipedia yet to be much help. Veritek83 17:44, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Underneath “Sheehan’s Campaign Against the War”, a sentence says, “Ironically, her son volunteered for service, and Sheehan used money from the government for her actions”

I'd like to point out that there's absolutely nothing ironic about her son joining the military, and the source provided does not say that she used "money from the government for her actions". Claiming that it's irony is inaccurate, POV, unencyclopedic, and arguably original research.

In the same section, a sentence reads, "In her anti-war speeches and writings, Sheehan is blunt and often vitriolic, a characteristic that has been noted by observers on both the left and right, and which Sheehan herself does not deny"

The source provided says people "sitting on the fence" have noted this, not observers on "both the left and right"—the latter is untrue and too far from neutral. I think fixing these would be a good start to removing the POV. Berserk798 15:13, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

The latter was simply a way of noting, which I think is important, that Sheehan as a matter of course makes statements that can seem extreme, because they often are (read some of her Common Dreams columns and you'll see immediately), to both her supporters and opponents. She's received criticism for this from the pro-Iraq war right but that hasn't made her change her mode of rhetoric/discourse. Badagnani 18:55, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

In steps Badagnani to block constructive criticism. I think Veritek83 and Berserk798 have valid points. The sitting on the fence "source" is a Sheehan column! How could that be a source regarding observations on the left and the right? She can't make objective observations of her speech from both points of view. Is Sheehan politically on both the left and the right? Durbinmj 12:11, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Notable for being notable?

I have to wonder about the encyclopedic nature of the subject. It seems to me that she has done nothing worthy of recognition except for striving to gain it. Should we as Wikipedians be aiding this?

Without commenting on her politics, I cannot say that she is a particularly articulate, logical or consistent commentator on her chosen area. Her one-eyed bigotry is readily apparent, and I have to ask if whether by giving her so much attention we are aiding in a POV slant to our coverage of current events. --Pete 00:44, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes it is notable; if the Associated Press is writing about it, it's worth noting. It is NOT Wikipedia's job to determine the worth of someone's rhetoric. If they're standing on a soap box as national as Ms. Sheehan, it's notable. --Rapturerocks 23:51, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Do all of Sheehan's individual public appearances need to be mentioned, though? (It'd be like the Bob Dylan article having a sentence on each of his live shows, or George W. Bush referencing every single one of his campaign speeches. Having them all is pedantic and all of them aren't notable.) --Hobbesy3 15:50, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

That's a good question and I can't really answer it. I don't tend to add that sort of information to Wiki. How could we pare it down do you think? --Rapturerocks 23:32, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Married?

I'm just wondering, is Cindy Sheehan married? ~ UBeR 00:42, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

See August 12, 2005 entry at Camp Casey, Crawford, Texas. Maybe she's divorced now, not sure. Badagnani 01:02, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I read (here: [50]) that her war protests were the cause of her marriage ending. To be exact, she said, "she sacrificed a 29-year marriage and endured threats to put all her energy into stopping the war", but it doesn't go into specifics. —MJCdetroit 15:56, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

The above link is dead. Here is a cite with the same: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18919775/ Dogru144 (talk) 15:23, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

She is divorced. As sources that came out today reported, her divorce was finalized some time ago: [http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=55912]. DickClarkMises 19:03, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Broken Reference Links

Under the references, links 37, 45, and 46 are broken. I'll leave it to an admin to fix them as I would prefer not to touch such a controversial page ;) Cobalt2020 15:27, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Citing Sources

hey all, I cleaned up about 14 of the links in the article. The rest need to be cleaned as well. Simply do what I've already done. I encourage you all to keep the sources in accordance with wikipedia. Buzz me on my talk page if you have any questions. --Maniwar (talk) 21:45, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

I posted this months ago, and no one has acted. This article has been tagged because the links/refs need to be cleaned up. I'm again posting to say this needs to be done. I encourage you all to work on cleaning up and making them more on par with wikiP. --Maniwar (talk) 13:42, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Anti-war campaign

This section needs a complete rewrite. Once it is finished, and sourced appropriately, the article will have attained B-Class. There are related articles connected to this one, and an attempt should be made to summarize them in this section. It is therefore appropriate to rename this section "Overview" per WP:SERIES. —Viriditas | Talk 03:15, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Sheehan is a Christian

" I left the Roman Catholic Church permanently after the 2004 elections, when many Roman Catholic Bishops and priests encouraged their flocks to vote for George W. Bush because he was "pro-life.""Make Me an Instrument of Peace". "I am a follower of the teachings of Jesus Christ.""David Barsamian: Cindy Sheehan Interview". Kgrr 05:06, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Congressional Candidacy

Sorry about the confusion in the edits. I received information that she planned to run against Rep. Pelosi if Pelosi failed to try to impeach Bush. Then I heard it wasn't true... then that source changed back. Lots of confusion here but now: She is planning on running if there is no impeachment effort.--Gcilley 23:28, 8 July 2007 (UTC) Also, my edit summaries say "senate"... She is planning on running for the house of reps. not the senate. I'm a mess today. Gcilley 23:32, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Wow ... its funny .. it seems that she is (deleted per policy) .... well not too suprizing from her— Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.107.0.73 (talk)

Note that the above user(S) of a shared IP address has been blocked for vandalism several times already per http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:131.107.0.73

Carol Moore 17:36, 11 July 2007 (UTC)User:Carolmooredc User talk:Carolmooredc

The page should be changed, she threatened Pelosi to run against her, the article uses too week of words, it should say threatened not considering.

This issue is moot now that she has stated that she will run against Pelosi.[51] Terjen 04:27, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Ethnicity

Cindy Sheehan is not Irish-American and should be removed from that category. 75.34.26.160 13:48, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't know whether she is or not, but it shouldn't be mentioned in the first sentence even if she is. Per WP:MOSBIO, only American should be used for true Americans. Ethnicity should be discussed further into article unless it is specifically what makes her notable.--Gloriamarie 15:58, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree with both comments above. The entry absolutely adds no value to the article or to an Encyclopedia. There is too much hyphenated-Americanism going on, and basically every biography should then be hyphenated since we all stem from some other countries. I would like to see it removed, and unless there is consensus against it, I may remove it myself. --Maniwar (talk) 16:18, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Wrong conclusion from canadian polls

There is a sentence in the first topic (last para, under heading 'anti-war campaign) to make it appear as though Cindy Sheehan was lying or making things up, and that statement incorrectly states that Prime minister Harper of Canada had support from all over canada. Whereas the opposite is true. If you click on the link that is cited (#22) it is clear that Harper's party did not have support in Quebec. Therefore the statement that Harper had support in all parts of Canada is factually incorrect and should be removed.--207.194.108.93 20:50, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Looks like you are correct, but since that poll was about Harper's party and not specifically Harper, I checked and saw a better poll in March, indicating that even in Quebec, he was the most frequent first choice as the most likely to be a good Prime Minister. --Habap 15:16, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Shorten the page

I would say, the best thing to do, is shorten the page. She is not that big of a figure to warrant such a large description to her life. Just a few paragraphs, concentrating on the major events is all that is needed. A paragraph on Casey, her camp Casey, and her run for Congress (more, if she is to win). And a short section on what her critics say.

This, I believe, would make it more NPOV.

Please sign your comments with four tildes (~). I do not believe the article should be shortened; this is an encyclopedia.--Gloriamarie 16:38, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Precisely, which is why it needs to be shortened. No real encyclopedia would allow such voluminous fluff on a barely notable figure. Algabal 00:06, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

This entry desperately needs shortening. The subject is inconsequential; she's a webroots creation with no staying relevance (really, she's nothing more topical than ObamaGirl - or Two Girls One Cup, for that matter). That all you can muster in defense of shortening the entry is "this is an encyclopedia" is both hilarious and inane. Algabal states the obvious when he/she notes that prolixity is not the hallmark of an encyclopedia, particularly not for trivial subjects. I'd shorten this thing myself, but I'm wary of getting invested in any exercise that will only be reverted within 24 hours by her web-zealous cohorts. BasilSeal 11:02, 25 June 2008

Antiwar campaign

The antiwar campaign section has a neutrality tag; I'm not sure how long it's been there or if the section has actually been checked for neutrality yet. The Hurricane Rita comment is listed as a "controversy", yet when conducting a search of the phrase used, Wikipedia is the second hit, Free Republic (a forum and not a reliable source) is the first, an Associated Content (user-generated) site is the third, and a Blogger blog is the fourth. It doesn't seem that this created much controversy among mainstream news sources at all, so it's not worthy of inclusion in the article. The Israel email seems to have been more commented on, if only by one writer at a reliable source, which doesn't seem to qualify it as a "controversy" either. This is just my two cents.--Gloriamarie 16:48, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Category:American Christians|Sheehan, Cindy

Does this category really belong in this article? I would suspect that a a category called American Christians is about someone who demonstrates, shows, and earns that category. Just like I don't think she's earned or deserves the Irish American category because it is not significant enough, I don't thinks she has earned or deserves this category. Now, I'm not talking about her being a Christian but I am talking about what justifies her being added to this category. What say the rest of you? --Maniwar (talk) 13:39, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

References, and Prison Planet interview

I've started formatting the references. My goal is just to make the reference section display better. Most references now are just the URLs themselves, which do not break, causing the two columns to overlap.

I notice that some references that use the template do not display correctly, but I could not find out what the problem is. Perhaps someone more familiar with the template can look into this.

I also restored the Prison Planet interview reference. In this context, it does not matter whether Prison Planet is a reliable source or not; the paragraph is about things she said in this interview, so the interview itself is the best source there is.—Graf Bobby 19:17, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I found the problem with the templated entries: A line break in the title causes incorrect display. In two cases, I cropped the title when fixing this. I don't see a point in including the subtitle of an article in the reference link.—Graf Bobby 19:36, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm finished with what I wanted to do. Again, I did not format any links according to the template with author, publisher, access date and all that; I leave that to someone else. I just wanted the reference section to display correctly and thus be properly usable, it is now.—Graf Bobby 19:50, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Paragraph Deletion

I have removed the paragraph that read:

Cindy Sheehan was to appear at a rally in Charlotte, NC on July 17th 2007. Due to the presence of right-wing groups, including the "Gathering of Eagles," who had threatened her in the past, combined with the refusal by the police to separate the counter-demonstrators from the demonstration itself, Sheehan relocated to a business a few miles away where she spoke with supporters.

because it was unsourced and potentially libelous. - Skaraoke 10:14, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Not 'retired'

The parts that say she has retired need to be rewritten, I think. Despite her announcement a few months ago, she has continued to be involved in anti-war activism, even being arrested today at General Petraeus' report to Congress. The announcement can be kept, but lines like "In May 2007, Sheehan officially ended her involvement as an anti-war activist..." in the first paragraph should be rewritten since it is clearly not accurate. -Kraw Night 18:53, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Delicious Blended Frozen Treat Fast...

"Hers was a fast from solid foods, but allowing liquids such as blended juice drinks and smoothies.[55][neutrality disputed]"

How can the above line be disputed for its neutrality? It's linked to an open internet letter, written by Sheehan herself, in which she discusses the terrible trials of trying to find a sweet, delicious smoothie or blended juice/protein coctail in Madid, while she was on her way to Venice. Sheehan herself talks about being on a "fast," while in the same paragraph bemoaning the fact that she had to eat ice cream because she couldn't get a smoothie, whatever the hell that is.

I can't even tell whether the disputed line was written by someone who was pro- or anti-Sheehan! How can that be POV? It makes it obvious that Sheehan wasn't really "fasting," but the fact that Sheehan doesn't understand that "fasting" means "not eating... not even cool, refreshing, blended treats" doesn't make it POV. I can't tell whether it was written by a Sheehan supporter (trying to justify her non-fast) or a Sheehan hater (laughing at her for calling her all-smoothie diet a "fast"). Either way it's not POV.DougRWms 03:51, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Please don't let your hatred for this woman interfere with your editing of the article. It's pretty transparent. Please look up what "fast" actually means before you edit the article. Turtlescrubber 17:26, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't believe that sentence is POV. I suspect that the objection may be the use of the word "smoothies" since its kinda sounds like a fun thing (the tv commercial where the tough bikers are talking about and drinking smoothies comes to mind here). While I really don't see a problem, perhaps if the we substituted the word "smothies" with something that sounds less trivial. "Milkshake" perhaps? I dunno. Doesn't sound like a major issue in any event. Dman727 20:56, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

What's transparent is the fact that she didn't fast. That's not as important, though, as the fact that your edit keeps removing a citation. If you think the sentence is POV and want to change it, I'm happy to entertain suggestions. But don't remove the citation. Sheehan uses the word "smoothies" to describe her non-fast meals.DougRWms 02:30, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

What's transparent is the fact that you don't understand what the word fast means. She is on a liquid diet. That is fasting. I have no problem with the citations but I do have a problem with you trying to insert your feelings of her being a hypocrite in the article. I don't like the woman at all but I hate pov pushing more. Turtlescrubber 03:32, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

It's not enough to simply say that she was on a liquid diet, at least if Wikipedia's article on liquid diets is accurate. Smoothies are not liquid, they're blended solid foods. Now, that's not to say that she didn't stick to that diet (although I haven't seen any confirmation of that), or that it didn't represent an inconvenience for her. I'm sure that her layover between Madrid and Venice was a pretty tense time. However, the fact remains that what she was doing (if she was observing the diet at all) was blending her food, or having it blended for her. There is no POV in drawing from the citation (Sheehan's own words) to add information on what she ate during her "fast." DougRWms 02:43, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Check out what a liquid diet is. Smoothies are liquid, you drink them through a straw. She didn't "eat" anything and your pov is spilling into your words and the article. It is a liquid diet. Please do some research. If you check the code pink page (which she is listed on) it includes tips for sustaining their liquid diet. This is not a water only diet which is also called starving to death. Please stop reverting the page. Turtlescrubber 03:31, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Since you don't think "liquid diet" is sufficient, should we explain what a liquid diet is? Turtlescrubber 20:06, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Putting in verifiable information about the aspects of her fast is sufficient and notable. If readers want information on nutrition and how other subjects fast that information is out there. For this article and subsection what is important is the details of the subjects fast.Dman727 21:23, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Seriously what is the problem here? Cindy is a notable individual and certainly her fast is notable (as she intended). This an encyclopedia and its goal is to illustrate notable things. Cindy has made a point several times to point out the sacrifice she is making and the details of her diet. I suppose that the term "smoothie" has some concerned as it sounds like a fun, trivial term/word. But thats not a rephrase, they her own exact phrasing. Sure we could cut it out details, but thats not the mission here. I just don't see a pov issue. Dman727 21:18, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

According to my reading of the WP article liquid diet, what she appears to have been on is a "full liquid diet". Based on this, we should just call it a "full liquid diet" in the article, wiki link to the particular section in that article, and leave out the particular components of the diet as extraneous trivia. Gamaliel (Angry Mastodon! Run!) 21:24, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Thats probably a ok compromise. Removing details will likely satisfy folks who think that specific food items represents someones POV. Granted it makes the article less informative, but clearly information should take a backseat in this case. Dman727 21:56, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Pov tag added

Listing what someone can eat on a liquid fast? Why? Trying to paint Sheehan as a hypocrite. Should I also list what she won't eat for balance. Hot dogs, hamburgers, bread, cheese, twinkies, etc. Or shoud we include other things she imbibes like water, coffee, blueberry juice, orange juice, lemonade, broth, carrot juice, juicy juice, capri suns, sunny D. Why the pov pushing? Lets discuss. Turtlescrubber 05:09, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

You're begging the question. There's no need to list which foods she forwent, because not eating is inherent in the definition of the intransitive verb "to fast." Certainly, that term also includes abstaining from certain foods, e.g. a Catholic honoring Lent by abstaining from eating meat. However, in such a case (i.e., this case) it is illustrative and not at all POV to point out the nature of her "fast." To simply state that she "fasted" without adding detail is to imply that she went without nourishment for the prescribed period, which is inaccurate. I leave it to the mods to determine whether the citation as added is POV. DougRWms 220.144.156.150 06:53, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Who said anything about the citation. The citation is fine. A liquid fast is still a fast. If you cared enough to be npov, then the description should be something like "abstained from eating solid foods". Following your logic, I will add all of the liquids she is allowed to eat. Did you stop reading my response after the first sentence? Turtlescrubber 13:12, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Please give citations for any allegations

I have removed material from this article that does not comply with our policy on the biographies of living persons. Biographical material must always be referenced from reliable sources, especially negative material. Negative material that does not comply with that must be immediately removed. Note that the removal does not imply that the information is either true or false.

Please do not reinsert this material unless you can provide reliable citations, and can ensure it is written in a neutral tone. Please review the relevant policies before editing in this regard. Editors should note that failure to follow this policy may result in the removal of editing privileges.--Doc^g 00:02, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Fixed the "Sheenan" thing and the "911" was changed to "9/11". --—Preceding unsigned comment added by Kookywolf (talk • contribs)

Material removed from Code Pink article

We recently removed material from Code Pink after determining that said material was off-topic as far as Code Pink was concerned. An editor identified the material as being more appropriate on this article. If you're interested, here's the diff where we removed it: [52]. SchuminWeb (Talk) 11:15, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Ridiculously POV, Pro-Sheehan mess masquerading as encyclopedia entry.

This entire article reads like a biased, one-sided love letter to one of the most controversial Americans of the last five years. Wikipedia is disgraced as a source of encyclopedic information when it is allowed to display such blatant bias by tone and omission.

Where are the "Criticism" or "controversy" sections I see applied to so many conservative political figures for this article. Not everyone thinks she is a wonderful "Peace Mom" after all. Heavy, heavy criticism from all forms of conservative media and politicians have opined about her and labeled her (justly, IMO) 1.) a terrorist sympathizer 2.) an anti-Semite 3.) a woman who is shamelessly using her son's death to climb to fame while mocking the conflict he cared enough about to fight and die in.

Surely you can find links to Townhall, FoxNews, Limbaugh, Bush admin. officials, Washington Times, etc. that would flesh out the opposition to this woman felt and expressed by just as large a group of detractors as she has supporters (her support seems to be amply covered already, I see).

Just because lefties seem to dominate the ranks of Wiki contributors and moderators doesn't mean that this site should turn into one-sided liberal blog. Keep it balanced. Delete nothing, but add the counter opinions too.

-TDB —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.146.242.164 (talk) 09:15, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

If this article is biased, nobody's keeping you from looking up proper sources and presenting the other side. Have fun, and good luck! Snowfire51 (talk) 09:20, 31 January 2008 (UTC)